[ardrak]

There are some wild takes in the comments here that seem to imply it’s all just a whim of some random judge. But that’s not what happened at all, and I recommend that anyone interested in having a more informed opinion on the matter read about it somewhere other than on X (because of the obvious bias).

A somewhat simplified timeline of events (in mt understanding of the events) is:

    The judge ordered the temporary ban of a few accounts during the investigation of the riots in the National Congress after the last election.
    The accounts were banned, but Musk ordered them to be unbanned.
    A fine was then stipulated for each day the accounts remained active.
    The fines kept accumulating, and Musk stated that X would neither pay the fees nor ban the accounts.
    The judge called the legal representative to give explanations.
    The order was again ignored.
    The judge threatened the legal representative with arrest.
    X closed all offices and dismissed all personnel in Brazil.
    The judge warned that having a legal representative in the country is a legal requirement and gave a few days for a new one to be appointed.
    No representative was appointed, and X was banned in the country.
    The judge argued that X and SpaceX are under the same monetary umbrella and blocked the accounts of SpaceX in Brazil to pay the fines.
    A supreme court committee voted and said the judge’s orders on blocking X were legal.
    There is still debate about whether SpaceX can be held accountable for X’s fines.

[indoordin0saur]

I think it's important to keep in mind that the judicial system in Brazil is very political, much more so than in the US or Europe. The current Brazilian president was found to be leading a large ring of money laundering and embezzlement, stealing millions from the state oil company. Moraes was appointed by his allies and got him off the hook in very corrupt fashion. They even have threatened media companies for reporting on the scandal, as well as opposing politicians they see as a threat. Anyone interested in reading about the past of these guys currently running this censorship operation can see this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/01/brazil-operati...

[simtel20]

My recollection is that the accusations of Lula being implicated in the Lava Jato wasn't substantiated, but the accusation was used politically to send him to jail and thus prevent him from running for office against Bolsonaro. In the end all of the major charges against Lula were annulled [1], and the charge that got him sent to jail (bribery based on property being given to him, where no record of any sale or transfer of ownership was ever produced) was a political character assassination job and frame placed on him by a different judge in coordination with political opposition working to prevent him from running in the 2018 election[2].

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-56326389

[2] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/04/brazil-crimi...

[marcosdumay]

> the accusations of Lula being implicated in the Lava Jato wasn't substantiated

They were, with an overwhelming amount of evidence of several different wrongdoings.

Just to point, he was tried for 2 different crimes, by 4 different judges each, and found guilty every time.

> In the end all of the major charges against Lula were annulled

By those same political judges the GP is talking about. Based on the trial not following a law that was created 2 years later, with the explicit intent of making trial of politicians harder.

> and the charge that got him sent to jail was a political character assassination job

And that's, to be blunt, absolute bullshit. The charges were never formally decided after the trial was annulled, they are still open, sealed back into secrecy, and pending judgement.

[simtel20]

I'm not familiar with some of these accusations. Is there any reputable reporting on them?

[raul-pilla]

>I'm not familiar with some of these accusations

Then you're just guess posting for your ingroup.

[simtel20]

I don't think so? I'm asking for sources that I can read from people who are making claims to, to support their assertions. I've posted material that is more recent than the first post I replied to, and I haven't seen anything more recent from you or the couple of other folks who seem to have formed the opinion that what I've related is either false or incomplete. So please help a brother out here.

[marcosdumay]

Anything about the trials will have them.

[simtel20]

But I haven't found them when searching. would you do me the courtesy of providing links to the material you are referencing?

[cesarb]

The order of the events in your timeline is not fully correct, the "same monetary umbrella and blocked the accounts of SpaceX" part happened on 24 August, the "X was banned in the country" part happened on 30 August (and that 30 August order mentioned and gave the date for the earlier block of the SpaceX accounts).

[ardrak]

I see, my mistake.

[ripjaygn]

He's no ordinary judge. He's the judge, jury and executioner, who has clearly abused his powers for corruption before[2].

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41449560

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41449487

[matheusmoreira]

Thank you for those posts. I've favorited them and will be citing them in the future.

[glimshe]

You conveniently de-emphasized the illegal parts of the despot's decisions (punishing Starlink for X's actions) as "under the same monetary umbrella" and left out entirely the unconstitutional ones (fining Brazilians for using a VPN to access X).

Brazil is a sovereign democracy; it's important in any democracy for people to point out governmental abuse and try to eliminate its causes. Just because he can get away with these decisions given his power and influence, it doesn't mean that we should just roll over and be okay with it.

Elon Musk is no saint, but I respect that he's standing up against this monster.

[matheusmoreira]

Nothing wrong with your timeline. You just conveniently forgot the blatantly unconstitutional decisions that led to those events.

> The judge ordered the temporary ban of a few accounts during the investigation of the riots in the National Congress

Unconstitutional political censorship. Unconstitutional orders must not be obeyed. Every event after this one is essentially the brazilian supreme court finding ways to punish X for disobeying a unconstitutional order.

It also happened under the umbrella of the "fake news" inquisition, which is also unconstitutional and a blatant power grab by the supreme court.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382

There's also the fact that everything is secret. You can literally see this in the published images of the court orders. Even the involved lawyers don't have access to this stuff. Also unconstitutional.

Honestly it's kind of ridiculous to even talk about laws at this point. There are no laws here, only the whims of this judge-god-king.

[tumsfestival]

It's really sad how Hackernews is so chockfull of misinformation, you'd think the average user here would be smarter and less complicit in it, but no, if anything this whole debacle just proves how ignorant the userbase is.