[cca778]

A lot of opportunists in Brazil want the Internet to be a place for against-the-law speechs. It is not censorship if a court rules a social media company to delete pages/messages/whatever that violates any law.

Telegram and Google, as companies, published misinformation. They did not publish their opinions or provide alternatives. They misrepresented the current law project.

You are free to publish your opinion on a movie, your code, your own selfie. You are not free to publish bullying content, fake content, or anything that harms others.

[crop_rotation]

You make the wrong assumption that the truth on every issue is widely known and universally accepted.

> They misrepresented the current law project.

If criticising an ongoing bill is not allowed, how is it different from the USSR? If everyone has to agree to the government policy without exception, why do you need elections for? You can just let the Politburo (I mean the Great Supreme Court of Brazil) decide everything.

[Vox_Leone]

There is a good partial solution in the ordinary law: it is enough to strengthen the codes of ethics while regulating the presence and expression in the networks of politicians with a mandate.

Freedom of expression does not necessarily include the right to have your opinion amplified by powerful artificial means. Just as your right of self-defense does not include the use of nuclear weapons.

The principle of freedom of expression is about the right to say what you want at the top of your lungs. Radical political leaders with an open channel to their followers are the problem. With audacity and political will it is possible to tame them.

[lobocinza]

> Telegram and Google, as companies, published misinformation.

They didn't.

> You are free to publish your opinion on a movie, your code, your own selfie. You are not free to publish bullying content, fake content, or anything that harms others.

You're misrepresenting the current law project. Have you read it least? The 1st big problem is who will have the say in what is/isn't fake? The people backing this bill often spread lies and have zero commitment to truth and honesty. Fake news is everything that is inconvenient. Clearly, they have no issues with fake news when it supports them.

There is no place for a ministry of truth in a democratic system. I don't want my country to follow the Chinese example.

> It is not censorship if a court rules a social media company to delete pages/messages/whatever that violates any law.

What is being removed didn't violate any laws. Opinion and free speech is a constitutional and international right. The court orders were nonsensical and legal only because they came from the supreme court which is above everyone else so they can interpret things as they wish.

It's insane to have a supreme court overruling the legislative and the executive branches in a weekly basis. The supreme court actions are undemocratic and create dangerous precedents. It's slowly becoming a judicial dictatorship. Even elected representatives are afraid of them.