Comment by ein0p
Comment by ein0p 10 months ago
None of this is “well conceived”. De Moraes is way too high on his own supply.
Comment by ein0p 10 months ago
None of this is “well conceived”. De Moraes is way too high on his own supply.
When the person named is spending their days making childish AI images of the judge behind bars, is it not reasonable to cite them directly?
Exactly. Elon Musk said you have to be braindead [1] to prefer being banned in a country over honoring censorship requests by the government. But he immediately abandoned any pretense of that position due to his personal animus against the government of Brazil.
Don't forget them quietly deleting Elon's "secret master plan" about climate change [1] because Elon decided that oil and gas are OK, actually [2]
[1] https://futurism.com/the-byte/tesla-deletes-elon-musk-master...
[2] https://www.bncnnews.com/2023/12/elon-musk-asserts-oil-and-g...
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 involvent.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382
That's not enforcing the law.
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.
Incredibly productive? Twitter's value is down almost 90% since he took over
https://fortune.com/2024/08/15/elon-musk-tesla-stock-sale-tw...
Haha, or just about any other oligarch. Also, "free market" is equally laughable.
Such a silly comment.
Political censorship is unconstitutional in Brazil. These judges are after Bolsonaro and his supporters for the political speech they engaged in. Blatant political censorship.
The constitution literally contains the words:
> Any and all censorship of political and artistic nature is prohibited
It's really not that hard to understand. Any citizen can understand this. It's just that it doesn't matter what the law says. Because there's no court above them, the law becomes whatever they say it is.
Which parágrafos or incisos of the Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil
> literally contains the words:
cited in English?
Isn't political debate in Brazil sharply divided by selective absolute Constitionalism in any case?
Why leap to the defence of bad faith falsehoods spread by bad losers of a democratic election?
Brazil is a Portuguese-speaking country. Obviously, the brazilian constitution is not written in English. I took the liberty of translating the passage so that people from this community would understand it.
You don't have to believe my translation. Here's a completely independent source I found by searching the web:
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017
I will cite and copy the relevant parts from it.
TITLE II. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND GUARANTEES
CHAPTER I. INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE RIGHTS AND DUTIES
Article 5
Everyone is equal before the law, with no distinction whatsoever,
guaranteeing to Brazilians and foreigners residing in the Country
the inviolability of the rights to life, liberty, equality, security
and property, on the following terms:
Term IX.
expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific, and communication activity
is free, independent of any censorship or license;
CHAPTER V. SOCIAL COMMUNICATION
Article 220
The expression of thoughts, creation, speech and information,
through whatever form, process or vehicle,
shall not be subject to any restrictions,
observing the provisions of this Constitution.
Paragraph 1.
No law shall contain any provision that may constitute
an impediment to full freedom of the press,
in any medium of social communication,
observing the provisions of art. 5°, IV, V, X, XIII and XIV.
Paragraph 2.
Any and all censorship of a political, ideological and artistic nature
is forbidden.
Term IV.
manifestation of thought is free, but anonymity is forbidden;
Term V.
the right of reply is assured, in proportion to the offense,
as well as compensation for pecuniary or moral damages
or damages to reputation;
Term X.
personal intimacy, private life, honor and reputation are inviolable,
guaranteeing the right to compensation for pecuniary or moral damages
resulting from the violation thereof;
Term XIII.
exercise of any job, trade or profession is free,
observing the professional qualifications that
the law establishes;
Term XIV.
access to information is assured to everyone,
protecting the confidentiality of sources
when necessary for professional activity;
Debating these points here on HN, I've had people cite lesser laws than the constitution, I've had people get into incredibly pedantic arguments over how it's ackshually not really censorship when you delete the political opposition's social media, I've had people appeal to authority, I've had people call me a moron. I've never, not once, had them point out to me where in the fuck it says, in the above text, that these judges can do what they're doing.
> Isn't political debate in Brazil sharply divided by selective absolute Constitionalism in any case?
The whole point of my comments is that everything in this country is like that. Even the supreme court judges, whose literal job is to interpret and apply the constitution, are like that. They "selectively and creatively interpret" the constitution.
This country has no laws. Only the whims of these judges.
> Why leap to the defence of bad faith falsehoods spread by bad losers of a democratic election?
I "leap" to the defense of so called "falsehoods" because I see several things wrong with your loaded question.
This country is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship of the judiciary. Calling what we had an "election" is an insult to elections, it was more like a circus. I do not believe for a second that there was fraud in the US elections, but here the "bad losers" had plenty of reasons to doubt the results, among them the blatant political censorship perpetrated by the very same judges involved in this case.
I was going to elaborate on the above points but ultimately decided against it due to how fruitless it usually is. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if I saw HNers defending the communist Venezuelan dictator's "reelection" and calling the opposition he murdered and exiled "bad losers".
> Blatant political censorship.
Shutting down businesses (not speeches, they aren't keeping pro-lula Twitter accounts up while censoring conservative ones) for refusing to comply with the law isn't censorship.
Censoring books in public library is censorship though, and Musk supported De Santis anyway.
> keeping pro-lula Twitter accounts up while censoring conservative ones
Funny. Among the accounts targeted by this judge, not a single one is pro-Lula. Really curious, indeed. Are these guys saints? Are they literally never wrong on the internet?
Not too long ago, one of Lula's ministers "disseminated" some serious "misinformation". She literally said about a hundred million brazilians are starving to death right now. Where's the judge's fact checking? I wonder.
I mean, Lula himself has admitted to journalists that he just makes up statistics on the spot. You'd think he'd be this judge's worst enemy, given how gung-ho he is about "misinformation"... Oh shit, is that the judge attending a barbecue with Lula and his allies? Whew, lad. What do you know?
There's an argument to be made that lying to the public is not political speech.
Relevant analysis: https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/framing-disinf...
Of course. Brazilian politicians, even the literal brazilian government's official accounts, used to get fact checked on X on a pretty much daily basis. I have videos of our current president straight up admitting to a journalist that he invents numbers on the spot.
These are the "authorities" who would presume to condemn you for posting "fake news". In the 2022 elections, I witnessed these judge-kings censor people for associating Lula with the Venezuelan dictator. Then I had to watch him literally roll out the red carpet for that very same dictator only months into his mandate. More recently I watched as he supported the dictator's "election".
Can you please stick to the site guidelines? You broke them here (and in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41457274 as well).
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
What success? Twitter is down nearly 90% since he took over!
https://fortune.com/2024/08/15/elon-musk-tesla-stock-sale-tw...
I don't know much about Brazil , nor the background on this story, however even if Musk is in the right here, that doesn't make him any less of a fascist.
There isn't always a good and bad guy in these situations. Corrupt people and organisations can and often do oppose each other.
> "How? He's just enforcing the law in Brazil"
> "Elon is the one who cut off Twitter's 5th biggest market because misinformation is the opium of fascist-wannabees like him"
You don't seem to be sure on what is going on or even know what 'fascist' means.
Anything can be declared as "misinformation" these days which is the what many governments commonly use to enforce censorship and for its citizens to continue to believe one narrative for governments to then continue to lie to its citizens.
Why do you want this?
If someone tells me the sky is blue, and then someone else tells me the sky is purple, I'm not going to believe it's purple just because "the government" tells me the weather forecast
That's something you can vetify yourself though. What if the government claimed that Polish soldiers attacked the German border, you claimed that it was actually German soldiers in Polish uniforms to give Germany a casus belli to invade, and a court censored your claim because they insist it's misinformation? How the hell is the average citizen going to determine what is misinformation or not there if any counterarguments or evidence are censored?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
I have a hard time believing you're this naive about this. Either you really haven't thought through the repercussions, or you're in favor of it because it's being used against your political enemies (for now).
I'd counter that simply asserting that the Brazilian government is in the wrong over Elon Musk is a fools errand.
I'm far more concerned about disinformation peddled by oligarchs like Rupert Murdoch. But while we're citing history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_(book)
This book is so old it's legally in the public domain. Perhaps give it a read
[flagged]