10 million Brazilians flocking away from Twitter into BlueSky is an argument that even Elon can understand.
In case anyone believes this is about "free speech": the jurisprudence for the Brazilian Supreme Court decision is American, in fact. It is a doctrine known as "clear and present danger" and was established by the SCOTUS in 1919, by Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr in "Schenk vs. United States"[1].
The U.S. Supreme Court already applied it a couple of times.
De Moraes argued (correctly, IMO) that Musk's non-compliance was a "clear and present danger" to Brazilian democracy.
It may be of note that Schenck was used by the government to argue that speech exhorting people to burn their draft cards was not protected speech. Spare me the "clear and present danger to democracy" nonsense.
ETA: It has also been essentially superseded in the US. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Also of note, Schenck is where the (in)famous "fire in a crowded theater" line comes from. So any time that gets brought up in a debate about free speech, the only appropriate response is "Wait, you think protesting against the draft should be illegal?"
I don't know much about the Brazil case, but I think it's pretty clear it's not about "free speech" because he seems to treat countries very differently, depending on his personal opinion of the government in power (and who knows about any non-public deals).
Here's another, more severe case, "Saudi Crown Prince Confirms Death Sentence for Tweets". And remember, one of the biggest X investors is a prominent Saudi.
Edit: This is a bit different of case - it's not X doing content moderation at behest of a government. One could claim Musk doesn't have control over what other countries do. But, he's constantly criticizing and calling-out politicians around the world. But, not a peep about Saudi Arabia. (as far as I know).
It’s about each country’s own laws about free speech, not a universal free speech. He says countries have to pass laws if they want to restrict free speech and he will comply with those laws
> Twitter sued the government in July over takedown orders, after the government introduced legislation in 2021 aimed at regulating every form of digital content, including online news, social media, and streaming platforms and empowering itself to remove content it deemed “objectionable”.
Looks like they tried but India and Turkey passed laws. In Brazil they believe the judge's actions were not lawful.
Not true. It's like if a US Supreme Court justice got appointed the internet czar and started investigating, prosecuting and taking down things on the internet in secret without checks and balances.
That would never fly in the US.
Here's from an earlier comment:
Here's a good explanation of how the Brazilian Supreme Court did a creative and novel interpretation of the law to give itself powers to investigate and regulate the internet without law enforcement or legislative/executive involvement.
As documented by the New York Times, the first thing the judge did after getting powers to censor was to call a Brazilian magazine article about the person that gave him those powers 'fake news' and got it removed. It later turned out that article was true so he had egg on his face and had to retract his censorship order.
> To run the investigation, Mr. Toffoli tapped Mr. Moraes, 53, an intense former federal justice minister and constitutional law professor who had joined the court in 2017.
> In his first action, Mr. Moraes ordered a Brazilian magazine, Crusoé, to remove an online article that showed links between Mr. Toffoli and a corruption investigation. Mr. Moraes called it “fake news.”
> Mr. Moraes later lifted the order after legal documents proved the article was accurate.
How was it a clear and present danger? I don’t see it.
If we’d considered subversive opinions clear and present danger and it was held up in court we may not have had a civil rights movement or a women’s suffrage movement, etc.
It’s like they like protests unless they disagree with the protests and then they label them threats to democracy.
I have thought deeper and realized that one centralized website run by a guy that picks and chooses what I see based on the impulses of his ever-active id is an integral part of my moral worldview. It is ethically imperative that we toil in the posting mines of the doge man’s website so as to glorify Him with memes that do not offend Modi or Erdogan
I'm sorry for assuming this, but I think this could only come from someone that never felt like they're part of a threatened group. If people are marching the streets shouting "kill all the ${x}!", I very much feel like that's dangerous to democracy.
Would prohibiting such speech make the hate go away, or would it actually embolden the hate while allowing it to fester clandestinely, making it harder to prepare for if it comes to a head?
Would make the hate go away - probably not. But in the country I grew up, for example, we had a prime minister assassinated in the 90s, and I think that many would agree that it was the calls in protests and the kind of symbols that were used that created the ground on which a political assassination could happen.
That's a good example actually - should criticism of Trump now be subject to restrictions due to the two attempts on his life? "Stochastic terrorism" must be applied equally in both directions
Seems like he was targeted by people of his own political persuasion in both cases. So, yeah, maybe Trump should in fact tone down his violent rhetoric.
Are you familiar with the story of why the ACLU used to be so very respected? Or why they lost that status over things that would have been perfectly expected for other groups to do?
I'm not from the US, so I might be missing your point, but if you're referring to neutrality around free speech then I guess the answer is yes? I'm not sure where you're heading though. I do think this is a very complicated issue, and drawing the line is hard and often contextual. But at the same time I feel quite certain that a line must be drawn.
Yes, why not? I could imagine calls like these leading to hurting police personals. These personals are not only people (and therefore part of society, that democracy should protect), but they're also part of the law enforcement system, which is kinda crucial for, well, any society. Do we disagree?
In case anyone believes this is about "free speech": the jurisprudence for the Brazilian Supreme Court decision is American, in fact. It is a doctrine known as "clear and present danger" and was established by the SCOTUS in 1919, by Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr in "Schenk vs. United States"[1].
The U.S. Supreme Court already applied it a couple of times.
De Moraes argued (correctly, IMO) that Musk's non-compliance was a "clear and present danger" to Brazilian democracy.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clear_and_present_danger