[nosefurhairdo]

> Brazil doesn't have an equivalent to the U.S. First Amendment, and that's not necessarily a problem.

That's an interesting perspective. The way I read our first amendment, it seems that the rights granted therein are a prerequisite for a free society.

If Brazil's leaders are unwilling to allow a speech platform go uncensored, why not ban X? Should X have to comply with every country's censorship requests? Elon alleged that Moraes requested private user information as well. Should X hand over any and all user data that governments ask for?

[Teocali]

> If Brazil's leaders are unwilling to allow a speech platform go uncensored, why not ban X?

Because it’s not black and white

> Should X have to comply with every country's censorship requests?

X must comply with the laws of every country it’s operate. If it cannot, or not willing to do it, it must leave it. That’s exactly what Elon have done

> Elon alleged that Moraes requested private user information as well. Should X hand over any and all user data that governments ask for ?

If it’s done legally, yes.

This take is quite bizarre, honestly, given how personal data protection laws are subpar in the US. Even from the government (remember patriot act).

[nosefurhairdo]

I'm being critical of laws that allow governments to censor and invade privacy of their citizens. "If it's legal then it's okay" is a non-existent standard. By the same logic one would support stoning homosexuals to death in Iran (it's done legally!).

Additionally, do you think I'm in favor of the Patriot Act? Does its existence invalidate any belief I hold that privacy is important? Being subject to unjust laws motivates my beliefs, not undermines them.

[asadotzler]

If it's legal then you must comply to stay in the country is not the same as "if it's legal it's okay."

[anotherape]

Other countries like Australia rely on common law and statutory law.