|
There seems to be some confusion in the comments regarding this decision. This is not an arbitrary decision made in a vacuum. There’s an ongoing judicial inquiry, and the accounts suspended were linked to persons of interest. They’re currently being investigated for crimes in both civil and penal spheres. The accounts were not banned, they are temporarily suspended for the course of the investigation. Also, it’s explicitly mentioned that, given the evidences (which the accused parties have access to), some individual rights are being suspended, as they’re not shields for committing crimes or avoiding responsibility. The decision also mentions that Constitutional rights don’t exist on their own, they find their limits in the other equally important rights and guarantees contained in the Constitution. This is not some exotic feature of Brazilian law, it’s something also mentioned in the Declaration of Human Rights (which is also cited). Having said that, all affected parties have the right to contest the measure, this is not an autocratic decision. Finally, if Facebook and Twitter wants to operate in Brazil, they need to comply with Brazilian laws, including complying with court decisions. You can definitely argue against blocking the information world wide, but similar decisions were made by other democratic countries (like Canada). |
Except that this "judicial inquiry" is anything but lawful. The offended side (the supreme court) is also the inquirer and the judge. There is nothing in the law that allows this, and the constitution plainly prohibits it. They are abusing their power and are censoring activists, journalists and politicians, plain and simple.
> (which the accused parties have access to)
Even the OAB (brazilian akin to advocates' guild) recognized this wasn't the case for at leas two weeks. And when the accused were given access to formal accusation, they only had access to a small chapter of it.