• I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    3 months ago

    Judge tells the company to take down profiles that have been known to be used solely for spreading political lies. Company complies. Manbaby buys company, pedals back on previous compliance. Judge tells company to comply again. Company ignores it. Judge makes it a legal order. Company removes its legal representative from the country, so the company no longer “answers to the country’s laws”. Company’s IP addresses gets country wide block. That is censorship because…? Freeze peach?

    Not that the judge in question, Alexandre de Moraes, is any sort of role model, what with him imposing a R$50,000 fine to anyone using a VPN to bypass the block, which is a clear overstepping of the order and hitting end users because “fuck them”, this is likely to be overruled later today. He also ordered to freeze Starlink’s assets (because they didn’t comply with the order to block xitter).

    • Monomate@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The Brazilian Internet Law (Marco Civil da Internet) says that the content to be removed via judicial intervention must be specified. It does not allow the blocking of entire accounts from a social media platform. In fact, Brazilian Constitution forbids this kind of censorship (Censura Prévia). The decision to block X nationwide is based on a series of decisions that blatantly violate Brazilian Law.

      By the way, the dictator-judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered Starlink’s asset freeze before Starlink wouldn’t comply with X blocking.

      • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The part of the law that talks about content removal (Section 3, articles 18 to 21) does not say that only content can be removed nor that accounts can’t be touched. Before Moraes, judges have ordered people to be locked out of certain social media, so there is precedent.

        It’s also important to note that freedom of speech ends the moment it becomes a crime. Whether said xitter accounts have been committing crimes, and which crimes, is a different discussion

        • Monomate@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Fighting crime is desirable, but within the limits of the law:

          Brazilian Internet Civil Rights Framework

          Art. 19. In order to ensure freedom of expression and prevent censorship, the internet application provider may only be held civilly liable for damages resulting from content generated by third parties if, after a specific court order, it fails to take steps to, within the scope and technical limits of its service and within the specified timeframe, make the content identified as infringing unavailable, except for legal provisions to the contrary.

          § 1º The court order referred to in the caput must contain, under penalty of nullity, clear and specific identification of the content identified as infringing, which allows the unequivocal location of the material.

          Note that the legislator took the trouble to say right at the beginning that the intention is to prevent censorship. Few laws are written in such detail as to reinforce their guiding principles in the middle of the provisions. If the legislator went to this trouble, it is because the intention of avoiding censorship is fundamental to this law. If judges are ignoring the law, they’re ignoring the will of the people.