|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Fans of policing speech to combat misinformation can rejoice as twitter has been banned in Brazil after disobeying a supreme court justice's order. The supreme court justice, Alexandre de Moraes, had previously been given unilateral power to take down any posts on social media he has determined to be a threat to democracy. Social media companies have 2 hours to comply with his orders or their services can be suspended in Brazil. Determining which posts need to be purged from social media and which users need to be reported on is just one of the many ways this justice is fighting fascism. According to the NYTimes
He has jailed people without trial for posting threats on social media; helped sentence a sitting congressman to nearly nine years in prison for threatening the court; ordered raids on businessmen with little evidence of wrongdoing; suspended an elected governor from his job; and unilaterally blocked dozens of accounts and thousands of posts on social media, with virtually no transparency or room for appeal.
You know, fighting the good fight against fascism.
Btw I made a point last week that policing speech/misinformation on the internet is not going to be done with a scalpel. As part of his order the supreme court justice initially ordered Google and Apple to ban the download of popular VPN apps on their platform. I suppose the logic being that people will still be able to use VPNs to access Twitter so you might as well ban them as well even though they have nothing to do with Twitter and people use them for other reasons than accessing Twitter. He eventually reversed that decision presumably from facing backlash for it. Just shows the lengths they will go to, but I'm sure people will steadfastly declare this a slippery slope fallacy.
|
United States24741 Posts
And the current relevance to US Politics is? An interesting case study that happens to be in the news?
|
People would have more concerns if Twitter wasn't turned into a groyper shithole managed by a terminally online Kirk Van Houten crossed with a early 2000s forum moderator. I don't think people really realise just how unusable the platform has become if you actually used it for more than posting Twitter links in forums.
As of right now, Twitter deserves everything aimed at it so no one really cares that the judge in question has questionble motivations. Even if you took Elon Musk being doing random shit like unbanning users who share CSAM out of the picture, its a platform where just about every blue tick paying asshole is a bot who exists to do nothing but astroturf and/or scam you.
|
On September 01 2024 08:22 micronesia wrote:
And the current relevance to US Politics is? An interesting case study that happens to be in the news?
It relates to the conversation a few pages back regarding Zuckerbergs letter that Facebook was pressured by the government to censor certain posts and people in this thread voicing support for said pressure
|
United States24741 Posts
They seem pretty different... so how do they relate? What is your actual thesis?
|
United States43232 Posts
Brazilian law has the very reasonable requirement that all international companies operating in Brazil appoint a local representative who is responsible for compliance with Brazil’s laws.
Musk closed Twitter’s entire Brazilian office earlier in the spat which resulted in no representative. They have not appointed a new one and have been barred from operating due to their voluntary refusal to meet the bare minimum requirements for legal operations. The broader argument is broader but the ban is a self own in the hope of generating a victim narrative.
As for free speech, try talking about cisalpine Gaul on Twitter.
|
On September 01 2024 09:13 micronesia wrote:
They seem pretty different... so how do they relate? What is your actual thesis?
That democratic countries shouldn't be in the habit of determining which ideas should be censored
|
United States24741 Posts
There's a breakdown in the logic chain though.
Country X is censoring ideas and look how horrible it is. They execute everyone in their country who says "James Raynor" on social media. Obviously, the USA shouldn't start executing people within the USA who say the words "James Raynor" on social media.
Oh, and also, obviously direct and indirect censorship of all types is bad and shouldn't be used in the USA. After all, look at Country X.
You need to provide more for those two paragraphs to connect.
|
On September 01 2024 09:22 KwarK wrote:
Brazilian law has the very reasonable requirement that all international companies operating in Brazil appoint a local representative who is responsible for compliance with Brazil’s laws.
Musk closed Twitter’s entire Brazilian office earlier in the spat which resulted in no representative. They have not appointed a new one and have been barred from operating due to their voluntary refusal to meet the bare minimum requirements for legal operations. The broader argument is broader but the ban is a self own in the hope of generating a victim narrative.
As for free speech, try talking about cisalpine Gaul on Twitter.
X closed their Brazil office because their staff was threatened with arrest for not complying with censorship orders
The social media giant published pictures of a document allegedly signed by Moraes which says a daily fine of 20,000 reais ($3,653) and an arrest decree would be imposed against X representative Rachel Nova Conceicao if the platform did not fully comply to Moraes' orders.
Brazil's Supreme Court, where Moraes has a seat, told Reuters it would not speak on the matter and would not confirm nor deny the authenticity of the document shared by X.
Is the self-own that they should have complied with the censorship but didn't or is the self-own that they should have kept their offices open so their employees can be arrested? Blaming an authoritarian use of power on X for not falling in line is giving bootlicking vibes
|
On September 01 2024 09:55 micronesia wrote:
There's a breakdown in the logic chain though.
Country X is censoring ideas and look how horrible it is. They execute everyone in their country who says "James Raynor" on social media. Obviously, the USA shouldn't start executing people within the USA who say the words "James Raynor" on social media.
Oh, and also, obviously direct and indirect censorship of all types is bad and shouldn't be used in the USA. After all, look at Country X.
You need to provide more for those two paragraphs to connect.
Comparisons to other countries are made all the time in the US pol thread. I've never seen anyone object on the grounds of relevance when talking about UK's gun control, or Canada's healthcare, or Finland's education system, or Norway's prison system, etc. The USA replicating those things is no more likely than a hypothetical replication of Brazil's censorship of social media. I'd argue that my example is the most likely to be replicated given the similarities of both countries dealing with far-right election-denying government-building-storming mobs and the reaction to "defend democracy" at any cost
|
On September 01 2024 05:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2024 04:27 Gorsameth wrote:On September 01 2024 04:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 01 2024 02:17 Gorsameth wrote:
I really don't get the people who think Trump having a hot mic is a bad thing for him. What can he say that we haven't heard before?
Do people really think it would cost him even 0.1% in the polls if Trump called Kamala the N word?
Democrats should want Kamala to be able to give her answers clearly and without Trump shouting over her. That will do a lot more then Trump shouting something stupid #273154 It's mostly based on the perception that he'd turn off at least a handful of middle class white women that are already reluctant because of the abortion stuff. I don't think that's really the core of it though. Basically Harris wants to be able to interrupt Trump's lies. Trump's team doesn't like that prospect and Trump himself is confident it wouldn't phase him (hence the muddled messaging). On voters it's kinda tricky because both candidates have a base of supporters for which there's essentially nothing they could do to lose their votes (Harris could call Palestinians "Sand N-" and everyone supporting her here would still support her). If Trump dropped an N-bomb on Kamala at a debate he'd certainly lose some voters, but also probably gain some disaffected white nationalist voters in their stead (this vulnerability is part of why Democrats are leaning so hard into nationalism and patriotism while engaged in genocide). I'd like to believe that it'd net out to at least a marginal loss of support, but the US's depravity seems to know no bounds. I didn't think about Kamala wanting to shout over Trump, that could be an angle to it indeed. thank you. I can't imagine Harris interrupting or shouting over Trump. That also doesn't really make much sense to me, as Harris's image is far more composed and adult than Trump's.
As pointed out it wouldn't/shouldn't be long rebuttals or too much getting in the mud, but more quick jabs meant to get under his skin and provoke him into a bigger mistake while ruining the soundbite for Trump and making one of her own.
According to reports the Harris campaign is leaning a bit more into the immature trolling than the quick jabs, but there's certainly some overlap I'd expect to see at a debate.
On September 01 2024 05:47 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2024 04:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
On voters it's kinda tricky because both candidates have a base of supporters for which there's essentially nothing they could do to lose their votes (Harris could call Palestinians "Sand N-" and everyone supporting her here would still support her). It's true a lot of Kamala's voters will still vote for her even if she does unappealing things because of how strong the desire to vote against Trump is... but just to check, by "would still support her" do you basically just mean "would still vote for her"? Full-throated support is far different than holding your nose and voting.
Mostly yes, but also keep advocating others do the same. I don't think "full-throated support" is functionally "far different" than "holding your nose and voting" though. Also, "holding noses" should come with holding one's tongue too, if they are going to insist they aren't "full-throated" supporters.
|
United States24741 Posts
On September 01 2024 10:15 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2024 09:55 micronesia wrote:
There's a breakdown in the logic chain though.
Country X is censoring ideas and look how horrible it is. They execute everyone in their country who says "James Raynor" on social media. Obviously, the USA shouldn't start executing people within the USA who say the words "James Raynor" on social media.
Oh, and also, obviously direct and indirect censorship of all types is bad and shouldn't be used in the USA. After all, look at Country X.
You need to provide more for those two paragraphs to connect. Comparisons to other countries are made all the time in the US pol thread. I've never seen anyone object on the grounds of relevance when talking about UK's gun control, or Canada's healthcare, or Finland's education system, or Norway's prison system, etc. The USA replicating those things is no more likely than a hypothetical replication of Brazil's censorship of social media. I'd argue that my example is the most likely to be replicated given the similarities of both countries dealing with far-right election-denying government-building-storming mobs and the reaction to "defend democracy" at any cost
My thinking wasn't that your posts' intentions are off topic (and thus not allowed) but rather, you left part of your position unstated, and that missing part was necessary for the post to be on-topic. The last sentence of your reply here is the first time I've noticed you tying what you were citing together with U.S. politics, regardless of how on or off the mark I think it is.
|
On September 01 2024 10:15 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2024 09:55 micronesia wrote:
There's a breakdown in the logic chain though.
Country X is censoring ideas and look how horrible it is. They execute everyone in their country who says "James Raynor" on social media. Obviously, the USA shouldn't start executing people within the USA who say the words "James Raynor" on social media.
Oh, and also, obviously direct and indirect censorship of all types is bad and shouldn't be used in the USA. After all, look at Country X.
You need to provide more for those two paragraphs to connect. Comparisons to other countries are made all the time in the US pol thread. I've never seen anyone object on the grounds of relevance when talking about UK's gun control, or Canada's healthcare, or Finland's education system, or Norway's prison system, etc. The USA replicating those things is no more likely than a hypothetical replication of Brazil's censorship of social media. I'd argue that my example is the most likely to be replicated given the similarities of both countries dealing with far-right election-denying government-building-storming mobs and the reaction to "defend democracy" at any cost
Where is the limit for you? Should I be allowed to advertise my illegal phentanyl on twitter? And if I do, get arrested, and thrown in jail, should my pithy tweets inviting people to try phentanyl just remain there forever?
|
On September 01 2024 12:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2024 10:15 BlackJack wrote:On September 01 2024 09:55 micronesia wrote:
There's a breakdown in the logic chain though.
Country X is censoring ideas and look how horrible it is. They execute everyone in their country who says "James Raynor" on social media. Obviously, the USA shouldn't start executing people within the USA who say the words "James Raynor" on social media.
Oh, and also, obviously direct and indirect censorship of all types is bad and shouldn't be used in the USA. After all, look at Country X.
You need to provide more for those two paragraphs to connect.Comparisons to other countries are made all the time in the US pol thread. I've never seen anyone object on the grounds of relevance when talking about UK's gun control, or Canada's healthcare, or Finland's education system, or Norway's prison system, etc. The USA replicating those things is no more likely than a hypothetical replication of Brazil's censorship of social media. I'd argue that my example is the most likely to be replicated given the similarities of both countries dealing with far-right election-denying government-building-storming mobs and the reaction to "defend democracy" at any cost Where is the limit for you? Should I be allowed to advertise my illegal phentanyl on twitter? And if I do, get arrested, and thrown in jail, should my pithy tweets inviting people to try phentanyl just remain there forever?
In general I think the limit should be what the law already allows for. Could you advertise your fentanyl in a newspaper, or on the street corner, or on a billboard? Granted, different countries have different laws. Clearly in this case the law allows for 1 guy in Brazil to determine what should or shouldn't be banned. It's up to Twitter to decide if they want to abide by the laws or risk getting banned.
I'm reminded of this exchange between Elon Musk and Don Lemon
Musk: If something is illegal we are going to take it down. If it's not illegal then we are putting our thumb on the scales and being censors
Lemon: But you remove child pornography
Musk: thats illegal
|
On September 01 2024 13:21 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2024 12:30 Acrofales wrote:On September 01 2024 10:15 BlackJack wrote:On September 01 2024 09:55 micronesia wrote:
There's a breakdown in the logic chain though.
Country X is censoring ideas and look how horrible it is. They execute everyone in their country who says "James Raynor" on social media. Obviously, the USA shouldn't start executing people within the USA who say the words "James Raynor" on social media.
Oh, and also, obviously direct and indirect censorship of all types is bad and shouldn't be used in the USA. After all, look at Country X.
You need to provide more for those two paragraphs to connect.Comparisons to other countries are made all the time in the US pol thread. I've never seen anyone object on the grounds of relevance when talking about UK's gun control, or Canada's healthcare, or Finland's education system, or Norway's prison system, etc. The USA replicating those things is no more likely than a hypothetical replication of Brazil's censorship of social media. I'd argue that my example is the most likely to be replicated given the similarities of both countries dealing with far-right election-denying government-building-storming mobs and the reaction to "defend democracy" at any cost Where is the limit for you? Should I be allowed to advertise my illegal phentanyl on twitter? And if I do, get arrested, and thrown in jail, should my pithy tweets inviting people to try phentanyl just remain there forever? In general I think the limit should be what the law already allows for. Could you advertise your fentanyl in a newspaper, or on the street corner, or on a billboard? Granted, different countries have different laws. Clearly in this case the law allows for 1 guy in Brazil to determine what should or shouldn't be banned. It's up to Twitter to decide if they want to abide by the laws or risk getting banned. I'm reminded of this exchange between Elon Musk and Don Lemon Musk: If something is illegal we are going to take it down. If it's not illegal then we are putting our thumb on the scales and being censors Lemon: But you remove child pornography Musk: thats illegal
Most countries around the world do not have such unrestricted freedom of speech like in the US. So, a lot of what other countries are telling Twitter to ban are things that are illegal in their countries... which is exactly why they're telling twitter to ban those users or delete those posts.
If twitter wants to be multinational, then it needs to learn to handle the laws in all countries and not try to force all countries to follow US law. That may mean that some users should be virtually banned in some countries, but not from the platform overall. However, overlord Musk doesn't seem to understand that sort of thing.
|
On September 01 2024 13:21 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2024 12:30 Acrofales wrote:On September 01 2024 10:15 BlackJack wrote:On September 01 2024 09:55 micronesia wrote:
There's a breakdown in the logic chain though.
Country X is censoring ideas and look how horrible it is. They execute everyone in their country who says "James Raynor" on social media. Obviously, the USA shouldn't start executing people within the USA who say the words "James Raynor" on social media.
Oh, and also, obviously direct and indirect censorship of all types is bad and shouldn't be used in the USA. After all, look at Country X.
You need to provide more for those two paragraphs to connect.Comparisons to other countries are made all the time in the US pol thread. I've never seen anyone object on the grounds of relevance when talking about UK's gun control, or Canada's healthcare, or Finland's education system, or Norway's prison system, etc. The USA replicating those things is no more likely than a hypothetical replication of Brazil's censorship of social media. I'd argue that my example is the most likely to be replicated given the similarities of both countries dealing with far-right election-denying government-building-storming mobs and the reaction to "defend democracy" at any cost Where is the limit for you? Should I be allowed to advertise my illegal phentanyl on twitter? And if I do, get arrested, and thrown in jail, should my pithy tweets inviting people to try phentanyl just remain there forever? In general I think the limit should be what the law already allows for. Could you advertise your fentanyl in a newspaper, or on the street corner, or on a billboard? Granted, different countries have different laws. Clearly in this case the law allows for 1 guy in Brazil to determine what should or shouldn't be banned. It's up to Twitter to decide if they want to abide by the laws or risk getting banned. I'm reminded of this exchange between Elon Musk and Don Lemon Musk: If something is illegal we are going to take it down. If it's not illegal then we are putting our thumb on the scales and being censors Lemon: But you remove child pornography Musk: thats illegal
"One guy" is a rather crude way of referring to their legal system. If this were in the US, this would ultimately be up to "9 guys" for similar reasons. Ultimately, courts decide whether the law was broken. I understand you think juries are the amazeballs way of doing the legal system, and they're a staple of common law systems. But the majority of the world actually doesn't use juries, but the civil law system, almost universally without juries. Probably because far less depends on any one decision (case law doesn't exist), but I'm not a legal historian.
As such, it is entirely normal, probably also in most cases in the US, but definitely in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and yes, also Brazil, for a single judge to decide an expression is illegal and order it taken down. And not because they don't like the message but because they have judged that it breaks the law. Which was where you drew the line.
|
On September 01 2024 14:13 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2024 13:21 BlackJack wrote:On September 01 2024 12:30 Acrofales wrote:On September 01 2024 10:15 BlackJack wrote:On September 01 2024 09:55 micronesia wrote:
There's a breakdown in the logic chain though.
Country X is censoring ideas and look how horrible it is. They execute everyone in their country who says "James Raynor" on social media. Obviously, the USA shouldn't start executing people within the USA who say the words "James Raynor" on social media.
Oh, and also, obviously direct and indirect censorship of all types is bad and shouldn't be used in the USA. After all, look at Country X.
You need to provide more for those two paragraphs to connect.Comparisons to other countries are made all the time in the US pol thread. I've never seen anyone object on the grounds of relevance when talking about UK's gun control, or Canada's healthcare, or Finland's education system, or Norway's prison system, etc. The USA replicating those things is no more likely than a hypothetical replication of Brazil's censorship of social media. I'd argue that my example is the most likely to be replicated given the similarities of both countries dealing with far-right election-denying government-building-storming mobs and the reaction to "defend democracy" at any cost Where is the limit for you? Should I be allowed to advertise my illegal phentanyl on twitter? And if I do, get arrested, and thrown in jail, should my pithy tweets inviting people to try phentanyl just remain there forever? In general I think the limit should be what the law already allows for. Could you advertise your fentanyl in a newspaper, or on the street corner, or on a billboard? Granted, different countries have different laws. Clearly in this case the law allows for 1 guy in Brazil to determine what should or shouldn't be banned. It's up to Twitter to decide if they want to abide by the laws or risk getting banned. I'm reminded of this exchange between Elon Musk and Don Lemon Musk: If something is illegal we are going to take it down. If it's not illegal then we are putting our thumb on the scales and being censors Lemon: But you remove child pornography Musk: thats illegal Most countries around the world do not have such unrestricted freedom of speech like in the US. So, a lot of what other countries are telling Twitter to ban are things that are illegal in their countries... which is exactly why they're telling twitter to ban those users or delete those posts. If twitter wants to be multinational, then it needs to learn to handle the laws in all countries and not try to force all countries to follow US law. That may mean that some users should be virtually banned in some countries, but not from the platform overall. However, overlord Musk doesn't seem to understand that sort of thing.
I'm pretty sure Musk isn't under the illusion that he can force Brazil to follow US law. An army of tech bros in their cybertrucks is no match for the Brazilian military. I think we should celebrate Brazil's independence from their "overlord" that was behaving tyrannically by not censoring what he was told to censor.
|
On September 01 2024 14:26 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2024 13:21 BlackJack wrote:On September 01 2024 12:30 Acrofales wrote:On September 01 2024 10:15 BlackJack wrote:On September 01 2024 09:55 micronesia wrote:
There's a breakdown in the logic chain though.
Country X is censoring ideas and look how horrible it is. They execute everyone in their country who says "James Raynor" on social media. Obviously, the USA shouldn't start executing people within the USA who say the words "James Raynor" on social media.
Oh, and also, obviously direct and indirect censorship of all types is bad and shouldn't be used in the USA. After all, look at Country X.
You need to provide more for those two paragraphs to connect.Comparisons to other countries are made all the time in the US pol thread. I've never seen anyone object on the grounds of relevance when talking about UK's gun control, or Canada's healthcare, or Finland's education system, or Norway's prison system, etc. The USA replicating those things is no more likely than a hypothetical replication of Brazil's censorship of social media. I'd argue that my example is the most likely to be replicated given the similarities of both countries dealing with far-right election-denying government-building-storming mobs and the reaction to "defend democracy" at any cost Where is the limit for you? Should I be allowed to advertise my illegal phentanyl on twitter? And if I do, get arrested, and thrown in jail, should my pithy tweets inviting people to try phentanyl just remain there forever? In general I think the limit should be what the law already allows for. Could you advertise your fentanyl in a newspaper, or on the street corner, or on a billboard? Granted, different countries have different laws. Clearly in this case the law allows for 1 guy in Brazil to determine what should or shouldn't be banned. It's up to Twitter to decide if they want to abide by the laws or risk getting banned. I'm reminded of this exchange between Elon Musk and Don Lemon Musk: If something is illegal we are going to take it down. If it's not illegal then we are putting our thumb on the scales and being censors Lemon: But you remove child pornography Musk: thats illegal "One guy" is a rather crude way of referring to their legal system. If this were in the US, this would ultimately be up to "9 guys" for similar reasons. Ultimately, courts decide whether the law was broken. I understand you think juries are the amazeballs way of doing the legal system, and they're a staple of common law systems. But the majority of the world actually doesn't use juries, but the civil law system, almost universally without juries. Probably because far less depends on any one decision (case law doesn't exist), but I'm not a legal historian. As such, it is entirely normal, probably also in most cases in the US, but definitely in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and yes, also Brazil, for a single judge to decide an expression is illegal and order it taken down. And not because they don't like the message but because they have judged that it breaks the law. Which was where you drew the line.
Nay, this is not "entirely normal." Every article I've read about this seems to acknowledge the powers granted to him are extreme but many insist the threat to democracy is so severe that it's worth suspending certain freedoms.
Among the accounts Mr. de Moraes ordered taken down are those of at least five members of Congress, a billionaire businessman and more than a dozen prominent right-wing pundits, including one of Brazil’s most popular podcast hosts. Mr. de Moraes’s orders to remove accounts do not specify why, according to the lawyer and a copy of one order obtained by The New York Times. Visits to banned accounts on Twitter yield a blank page and a blunt message: The “account has been withheld in Brazil in response to a legal demand.” And account owners are simply told they are banned because of a court order and should consider contacting a lawyer.
I assure you the US does not have a judge that bans whoever they decide from social media without providing a reason for doing so. I can't speak for the other European countries you've listed.
|
On September 01 2024 15:02 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2024 14:26 Acrofales wrote:On September 01 2024 13:21 BlackJack wrote:On September 01 2024 12:30 Acrofales wrote:On September 01 2024 10:15 BlackJack wrote:On September 01 2024 09:55 micronesia wrote:
There's a breakdown in the logic chain though.
Country X is censoring ideas and look how horrible it is. They execute everyone in their country who says "James Raynor" on social media. Obviously, the USA shouldn't start executing people within the USA who say the words "James Raynor" on social media.
Oh, and also, obviously direct and indirect censorship of all types is bad and shouldn't be used in the USA. After all, look at Country X.
You need to provide more for those two paragraphs to connect.Comparisons to other countries are made all the time in the US pol thread. I've never seen anyone object on the grounds of relevance when talking about UK's gun control, or Canada's healthcare, or Finland's education system, or Norway's prison system, etc. The USA replicating those things is no more likely than a hypothetical replication of Brazil's censorship of social media. I'd argue that my example is the most likely to be replicated given the similarities of both countries dealing with far-right election-denying government-building-storming mobs and the reaction to "defend democracy" at any cost Where is the limit for you? Should I be allowed to advertise my illegal phentanyl on twitter? And if I do, get arrested, and thrown in jail, should my pithy tweets inviting people to try phentanyl just remain there forever? In general I think the limit should be what the law already allows for. Could you advertise your fentanyl in a newspaper, or on the street corner, or on a billboard? Granted, different countries have different laws. Clearly in this case the law allows for 1 guy in Brazil to determine what should or shouldn't be banned. It's up to Twitter to decide if they want to abide by the laws or risk getting banned. I'm reminded of this exchange between Elon Musk and Don Lemon Musk: If something is illegal we are going to take it down. If it's not illegal then we are putting our thumb on the scales and being censors Lemon: But you remove child pornography Musk: thats illegal "One guy" is a rather crude way of referring to their legal system. If this were in the US, this would ultimately be up to "9 guys" for similar reasons. Ultimately, courts decide whether the law was broken. I understand you think juries are the amazeballs way of doing the legal system, and they're a staple of common law systems. But the majority of the world actually doesn't use juries, but the civil law system, almost universally without juries. Probably because far less depends on any one decision (case law doesn't exist), but I'm not a legal historian. As such, it is entirely normal, probably also in most cases in the US, but definitely in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and yes, also Brazil, for a single judge to decide an expression is illegal and order it taken down. And not because they don't like the message but because they have judged that it breaks the law. Which was where you drew the line. Nay, this is not "entirely normal." Every article I've read about this seems to acknowledge the powers granted to him are extreme but many insist the threat to democracy is so severe that it's worth suspending certain freedoms. Show nested quote +Among the accounts Mr. de Moraes ordered taken down are those of at least five members of Congress, a billionaire businessman and more than a dozen prominent right-wing pundits, including one of Brazil’s most popular podcast hosts. Mr. de Moraes’s orders to remove accounts do not specify why, according to the lawyer and a copy of one order obtained by The New York Times. Visits to banned accounts on Twitter yield a blank page and a blunt message: The “account has been withheld in Brazil in response to a legal demand.” And account owners are simply told they are banned because of a court order and should consider contacting a lawyer. I assure you the US does not have a judge that bans whoever they decide from social media without providing a reason for doing so. I can't speak for the other European countries you've listed.
Trump got a gag order from one judge. I'm sure he could've fought it, but he would've lost, because it was within that judge's right to issue that gag order. Sure, he didn't go so far as requisition X to take the posts down when Trump (repeatedly) broke the gag order, but he probably could have if he felt the need to?
As for de Moraes's extraordinary powers, they do go far, but in the case of censoring posts on X, they are backed by the other members of the tribunal. His "superpowers" are more related to his ability to approve/issue secret wiretaps. It is far-reaching and I have my own reserves about whether that's a good idea. An example of what seems like clear overreach is blocking Starlink to pay X's fines. But the bit about banning accounts that posted calls for insurrection and hate speech toward Lula and his government would easily be upheld if put before the full tribunal, which is part of why he didn't bother.
Now, whether it's just or not is something we can discuss, but *you* were the one who pointed to the law as the one thing that X had to comply with. We can have a discussion about the justness of restrictive censorship laws, but by pointing to the legality I assumed you wanted to avoid that.
|
On September 01 2024 16:15 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2024 15:02 BlackJack wrote:On September 01 2024 14:26 Acrofales wrote:On September 01 2024 13:21 BlackJack wrote:On September 01 2024 12:30 Acrofales wrote:On September 01 2024 10:15 BlackJack wrote:On September 01 2024 09:55 micronesia wrote:
There's a breakdown in the logic chain though.
Country X is censoring ideas and look how horrible it is. They execute everyone in their country who says "James Raynor" on social media. Obviously, the USA shouldn't start executing people within the USA who say the words "James Raynor" on social media.
Oh, and also, obviously direct and indirect censorship of all types is bad and shouldn't be used in the USA. After all, look at Country X.
You need to provide more for those two paragraphs to connect.Comparisons to other countries are made all the time in the US pol thread. I've never seen anyone object on the grounds of relevance when talking about UK's gun control, or Canada's healthcare, or Finland's education system, or Norway's prison system, etc. The USA replicating those things is no more likely than a hypothetical replication of Brazil's censorship of social media. I'd argue that my example is the most likely to be replicated given the similarities of both countries dealing with far-right election-denying government-building-storming mobs and the reaction to "defend democracy" at any cost Where is the limit for you? Should I be allowed to advertise my illegal phentanyl on twitter? And if I do, get arrested, and thrown in jail, should my pithy tweets inviting people to try phentanyl just remain there forever? In general I think the limit should be what the law already allows for. Could you advertise your fentanyl in a newspaper, or on the street corner, or on a billboard? Granted, different countries have different laws. Clearly in this case the law allows for 1 guy in Brazil to determine what should or shouldn't be banned. It's up to Twitter to decide if they want to abide by the laws or risk getting banned. I'm reminded of this exchange between Elon Musk and Don Lemon Musk: If something is illegal we are going to take it down. If it's not illegal then we are putting our thumb on the scales and being censors Lemon: But you remove child pornography Musk: thats illegal "One guy" is a rather crude way of referring to their legal system. If this were in the US, this would ultimately be up to "9 guys" for similar reasons. Ultimately, courts decide whether the law was broken. I understand you think juries are the amazeballs way of doing the legal system, and they're a staple of common law systems. But the majority of the world actually doesn't use juries, but the civil law system, almost universally without juries. Probably because far less depends on any one decision (case law doesn't exist), but I'm not a legal historian. As such, it is entirely normal, probably also in most cases in the US, but definitely in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and yes, also Brazil, for a single judge to decide an expression is illegal and order it taken down. And not because they don't like the message but because they have judged that it breaks the law. Which was where you drew the line. Nay, this is not "entirely normal." Every article I've read about this seems to acknowledge the powers granted to him are extreme but many insist the threat to democracy is so severe that it's worth suspending certain freedoms. Among the accounts Mr. de Moraes ordered taken down are those of at least five members of Congress, a billionaire businessman and more than a dozen prominent right-wing pundits, including one of Brazil’s most popular podcast hosts. Mr. de Moraes’s orders to remove accounts do not specify why, according to the lawyer and a copy of one order obtained by The New York Times. Visits to banned accounts on Twitter yield a blank page and a blunt message: The “account has been withheld in Brazil in response to a legal demand.” And account owners are simply told they are banned because of a court order and should consider contacting a lawyer. I assure you the US does not have a judge that bans whoever they decide from social media without providing a reason for doing so. I can't speak for the other European countries you've listed. Trump got a gag order from one judge. I'm sure he could've fought it, but he would've lost, because it was within that judge's right to issue that gag order. Sure, he didn't go so far as requisition X to take the posts down when Trump (repeatedly) broke the gag order, but he probably could have if he felt the need to? As for de Moraes's extraordinary powers, they do go far, but in the case of censoring posts on X, they are backed by the other members of the tribunal. His "superpowers" are more related to his ability to approve/issue secret wiretaps. It is far-reaching and I have my own reserves about whether that's a good idea. An example of what seems like clear overreach is blocking Starlink to pay X's fines. But the bit about banning accounts that posted calls for insurrection and hate speech toward Lula and his government would easily be upheld if put before the full tribunal, which is part of why he didn't bother. Now, whether it's just or not is something we can discuss, but *you* were the one who pointed to the law as the one thing that X had to comply with. We can have a discussion about the justness of restrictive censorship laws, but by pointing to the legality I assumed you wanted to avoid that.
I'm not sure I entirely understand your point. I think it isn't just and it shouldn't be legal. Whether or not it actually is legal is not an argument I think is worth having. If the 6-3 SCOTUS started making authoritarian rulings against leftists you probably wouldn't offer a nonchalant explanation that they are legally allowed to do that since they are the highest court in the land.
Should a justice be allowed to ban anyone he decides without due process and without explanation? Should he be able to order Google and Apple to ban VPNs from their app stores because people might use VPNs to access the other app he banned? Should he be allowed to fine anyone that access X $50,000 or whatever it was? Should he be able to freeze Starlink's finances because he decided the Starlink should be responsible for fines levied against X?
For me these are all very easy questions and defending these actions is akin to defending Kim Jong Un by saying "well technically he's supreme leader so he's allowed to do that."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
