[olivierduval]

Sorry I don't get: how is possible to find anybody defending Musk when the Supreme Court of a democracy ruled to exclude X from the country ?

Free speech is a good thing AS LONG AS it respect the country laws. In France, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: racism apology). That's OUR choice, on OUR territory (like it or not: rule your own country but not mine). Why should X be allowed to refuse to respect the France laws on the french territory (resp. Europe) ?

And if a Court find that X doesn't respect the country law, why should X be seen as a "free speech" leader and not just as an illegal company ?

For me, Musk attitude is just plain bullying as usual, and I just hope that Brazil will be able to negociate with US to punish him as he deserve for being such an (insert your prefered insult here)

[ivewonyoung]

The judge has a history of actual censorship, here's a case that the NYT wrote about, where he got a Brazilian magazine's news article deleted for "fake news" for writing a true article about the official who promoted him, as soon as he got powers to censor without due process or checks and balances.

> To run the investigation, Mr. Toffoli tapped Mr. Moraes, 53, an intense former federal justice minister and constitutional law professor who had joined the court in 2017. > In his first action, Mr. Moraes ordered a Brazilian magazine, Crusoé, to remove an online article that showed links between Mr. Toffoli and a corruption investigation. Mr. Moraes called it “fake news.”

> Mr. Moraes later lifted the order after legal documents proved the article was accurate.

https://archive.is/plQFT

That article is from 2022 but has a lot of details of overreach by the judge, like search raids on the homes of businessman who just happened to be in a group chat where someone was joking about a coup.

[_heimdall]

> Free speech is a good thing AS LONG AS it respect the country laws. In France, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: racism apology). That's OUR choice, on OUR territory (like it or not: rule your own country but not mine). Why should X be allowed to refuse to respect the France laws on the french territory (resp. Europe) ?

That isn't free speech if it has to abide by the government's laws. That leaves the door open for governments to ban whatever they want and still say their people have free speech because they're free to say whatever isn't banned.

I'm not even saying that is a bad thing, people can choose to run their country however they want. Just don't screw around with definitions and claim speech is free when it isn't.

[ta1243]

The US banns a lot of stuff too, from porn to sharing songs.

A major problem with online discourse about "free speech" is that is so ameri-centric. American view on what's allowed is the only definition that counts.

[_heimdall]

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I come from the US and have a view of free speech that is decidedly in conflict with how America handles speech today.

I disagree with the bans we already have on the books and find the phrase "free speech absolutism" to be ridiculous. Speech is either free or it isn't. There's nothing wrong with being concerned enough with certain types of speech that the society collectively agrees to ban it, but they no longer have free speech.

[ta1243]

You disagree with the ban on child pornography? Or counterfeit currency? You're anti-copyright? No problem with libel? You think that it's fine to incite vulnerable people to commit suicide, or other threats of violence?

America chooses to allow speech to be used as a weapon to attack people (although with limitations), other countries don't. You may like that, you might think America has too many limits, but the majority of the world does not like it and actually wants limits

[_heimdall]

Child pornography is not speech. Copyrights also aren't related to free speech as far as I'm aware, that's intellectual property law.

I don't have a problem with libel, no. People could say what they want about me, its not my problem unless the courts and jury allow a case against me with no evidence.

Anything one says can't incite suicide. As terrible as it is that is a decision made by the person who committed suicide. I've lost a close childhood friend and a close family member to suicide, it was their chose alone and I would never put burden that on someone else.

[throwaway11836]

>You disagree with the ban on child pornography? Or counterfeit currency?

I fail to see how porn or money can be categorized as speech.

[ta1243]

So your definition of free speech is different to others, for example JSG Boggs [0]. Unsurprising really, and not really "wrong", any more than people who have different opinions to you are wrong.

[0] https://news.artnet.com/art-world/jsg-boggs-money-artist-die...

[malermeister]

That's why the conversation in Europe is usually about Freedom of Expression, not Speech.

[_heimdall]

I've never actually understood the difference, curious if you can help fill in a few blanks for me.

How is expression different than speech here? Is a European really free to express themselves when they are limited to expression that the government approves (or hasn't banned)?

It feels like a lazy attempt at rebranding speech so they can claim its free...with government restrictions.

[malermeister]

You are free to express your opinions ("I don't like immigrants from Africa"), but you are not free to choose any manner of speech, as there's restrictions in certain areas, such as hate speech or inciting violence ("Kill the N-words!")

[_heimdall]

Isn't that full of loopholes though?

It seems like that would allow someone in Germany to say "I think the Nazis were 100% right in what they did to the Jews", though my understanding is that would be very much illegal under German law.

Similarly, would it be illegal to say "Kill the N-words!" but not "I think all the N-words should be killed!"?

Obvious caveat - this is a highly contentious topic. Thank you for helping me better understand European laws specifically. For anyone passing by, I'm obviously not condoning the opinions of the example statements above.

[olivierduval]

Actually, that's why there's judge to interpret the Law

In Europe, in general (and that's something that look a bit strange to US it seem), we judge on THE SPIRIT of the Law more than on THE TEXT. So a European court would surely consider "hate speech" independantly of how it is phrased exactly

However "I think the Nazis were 100% right in what they did to the Jews" is IMHO NOT "hate speech" but an opinion. What would be "hate speech" would be more "We have to kill the XXXXXX" (insert any race, color, religion, sex....) or "All the XXX must die" (different phrasing, same idea).

"Hate speech" is, well, spreading hate against some people. The judge will decide case by case. Example: some humorist have some racists jokes but the context will make clear if it "hate speech" (1st degree) or "humor" (2nd degree)

[malermeister]

It certainly is a lot more ambiguous than absolute free speech, yes. I think your example would still count as hate speech inciting violence against black people. The Nazi one I'm not sure off the top of my head, to be honest.

[true_religion]

Free speech is an ideal, not a reflection of the laws of a single country.

Personally, I don’t think countries should get international control over satellites that they didn’t launch or operate.

[ta1243]

I don't think that billionaires should be able to use the EM spectrum in countries they don't want to participate in

[pyrale]

> I just hope that Brazil will be able to negociate with US to punish him as he deserve for being such an (insert your prefered insult here)

No need to go there. Brazil is sovereign, and it can enforce its laws by itself.

If Starlink doesn't respect the law of the land, just freeze their assets and ask banks doing business in Brazil to stop processing payments to them. If Musk wants to maintain service for free, good for Brazilian people.

As it turns, that's what Brazilian courts did [1].

[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/08/30/musk-esca...

[hereme888]

The judge is violating the constitution of his own country and engaging in censorship of political opponents.

[olivierduval]

Is X a bralizian institution ? I don't think so... so X has no right to oppose this decision !

If the judge decision is illegal, that's the problem of the brazilian political and law system, and of the brazilian People. But X is not a brazilian citizen AFAIK... so it either follow the rules, leave the country or is illegal.

Moreover, when Starlink refuse to respect a court order, Starlink is although a problem (be it another Musk property or not)

[diegoholiveira]

> Is X a bralizian institution ? I don't think so... so X has no right to oppose this decision !

They have the right because you can appeal to the court. The problem is: it’s the Supreme Court, your appeal would be judged by the same judge.

> If the judge decision is illegal, that's the problem of the brazilian political and law system, and of the brazilian People.

True, but since the Supreme Court is also the only court where politicians can be judged, no one will do anything to stop them.

[hereme888]

X did leave the country, but it won't leave the internet. It's up to Brazil to block them.

[matheusmoreira]

People can do whatever they want. They just need to accept the consequences.

I post my comments here knowing there's a risk this judge might learn of my existence and persecute me for them. I chose to accept that risk because I find this situation to appalling to keep quiet about it. This wasn't a choice I made lightly. My own parents who lived through last century's military dictatorship recognized the signs and asked me to stop commenting online. They feared this guy might order my arrest and generally ruin my life. Their fears are not unfounded.

So I respect Elon Musk for this utterly political move. He accepted the consequences and did something few others would do. I can respect that. I have no doubt he has hidden self-serving reasons behind this move but that's an analysis for another day. Right now I'm just interested in the political ramifications this will have for my nation.

[guax]

> I post my comments here knowing there's a risk this judge might learn of my existence and persecute me for them

My brother in Christ. There is ZERO chance of this to happen for this kind of comment and to me It only tells me you need to distance yourself a bit from this. Focus on something positive for a week. You're going down a path that is so far outside the realm of possibilities at this time that's worrisome.

[lobocinza]

Unfortunately HN doesn't allow for deleting an account or old comments and it would be mostly pointless anyway because 3rd parties will archive them. While the probability of information posted here reaching Moraes is virtually zero it is very possibly in the future this information will be analyzed by large teams or automated systems and could lead to issues with authority. The future is unpredictable and this is not without precedent in countries like China and Russia. Even in Brazil I believe there are cases where people where arrested or at least fined for liking or sharing a post.

[matheusmoreira]

I wouldn't say there's a zero chance. The judge has gone after YouTubers and journalists before. I know that at least some of them fled to the USA to escape his persecution. There's one journalist in particular that the judge hates so much he was mentioned in those WhatsApp message leaks. Judge and his people apparently think the USA is being "difficult" for not giving the guy up.

[pyrale]

That is something that should be solved in front of Brazilian courts, not by foreign interference from a vigilante billionaire.

The US banned Tiktok for way less than this.

[nec4b]

There are a bunch of countries calling them selves democratic in name but are anything but that in reality. If in France in the future people democratically decide racism apology is fine, you would have no problem with that?

[smitty1e]

Another take on the matter is that Brazil is a trial run for a general global crackdown on unfettered communication.

Your hint that Brazil have the USG give Elon Musk the Pavel Durov treatment is chilling, indeed.

I guess after HN is shut down, a Martin Niemöller moment might find you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

[nataliste]

Huh. Maybe you should take your own advice and mind France's business and leave Brazil's and Musk's alone. God knows your country needs it.

Tangential, but I stopped being upset about asinine takes on free speech and government when I realized that the overwhelming majority of them came from provincial and subjugated Brits, Europeans, and Australians. You can see the bed they've made in their own countries, which I think is punishment enough.

[TMWNN]

> Sorry I don't get: how is possible to find anybody defending Musk when the Supreme Court of a democracy ruled to exclude X from the country ?

I am not in favor of any government fining people thousands of US dollars a day for the thoughtcrime of using a VPN to access X from within Brazil.

(I'm pretty sure that mods are hiding the VPN-ban news from /r/news and /r/worldnews, because it would damage the ongoing anti-Musk two-minute hates.)

[matheusmoreira]

> the Supreme Court of a democracy

This is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship of the judiciary.

X was not banned for racism, it was banned for "fake news". These supreme court judges started censoring "fake news" even before there was any legal basis for it. Then the judges tried to influence the legislative branch in order to get "fake news" laws passed that would legitimize their actions. Google even campaigned against the "fake news" law -- and this judge slapped them with totally arbitrary fines too until they stopped "abusing their economic power".

We the brazilian people have democratically REJECTED the "fake news" laws. They did NOT pass these laws. The representatives we voted for didn't allow it. I witnessed my representatives get rid of this law. And what did the judges do? They rammed the law through via electoral court "resolutions".

This is NOT a democracy. Our representatives don't matter. Only this judge-god-king's whims matter. Whatever he writes on a piece of paper becomes law. His pen makes police go to your home and oppress you, and police doesn't give a shit if the order is unconstitutional or not. This is a dictatorship of the judiciary.

The brazilian constitution spells it out with very simple words anybody can understand:

> Any and all censorship of political, ideological or artistic nature is prohibited

Our constitution does have exceptions for racism in general, just like your country. It does NOT have exceptions for "fake news". Censoring "fake news" is literally unconstitutional. Especially if the speech is of a political nature.