The Brazilian president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has said he hopes the crisis surrounding the social network X in Brazil might teach the world that “it isn’t obliged to put up with [Elon] Musk’s far-right free-for-all just because he is rich”.

Lula’s comments to the network CNN Brasil came after the supreme court voted unanimously on Monday to uphold the ban on X, which is now largely inaccessible in one of its biggest global markets.

The suspension was first ordered on Friday as a result of the company’s refusal to obey court orders requiring the removal of profiles accused of spreading disinformation and for the social network to name a local legal representative.

MBFC
Archive

  • breakfastmtn@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    The initial ruling was by a single judge but it was upheld yesterday by a panel of five supreme court justices:

    Members of Brazil’s supreme court have unanimously voted to uphold the ban on X, after Elon Musk’s refusal to comply with local laws led to the social network being blocked in one of its biggest markets.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      They didn’t approve the “Initial Ruling”. They approved the amended version that didn’t bar Apple and Google from distributing VPN Software and didn’t create a 5 day deadline.

      Do you know WHY Xitter doesn’t just appoint a legal representative and sidestep this mess? It’s because this same Judge threatened to imprison the last one and pre-emptively froze her bank accounts!

      https://time.com/7016537/brazil-blocks-elon-musk-x-twitter-company-refuses-comply-judge/

      https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o

      This is not how a legal system is supposed to behave.

      • Vilian@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        This is not how a legal system is supposed to behave.

        But it don’t work that way, he can threaten how much he want, the same way that he threatened to ban VPN, but he can’t do whatever he want

      • sorter_plainview@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Can you share where you saw “threatening to arrest and froze bank account”? Twitter made a post on their own page about something along the line. Other than that I couldn’t find any.

        The resignation of the legal representative has more nuance than what you said here. His (not her) name is Diego de Lima Gualda, an attorney in Brazil. After a series of non compliance from Twitter, the Twitter Brazil filed a request arguing that the Twitter international is responsible for compliance and Twitter Brazil does not have authority. The judge dismissed this request for obvious reasons, and the next day he resigned from the position.

        The non compliance led to resignation. This is crucial because the actions of Twitter are the reason why the legal representative faced the consequences. Not that the judge ordered something out of the blue. I think you are missing the key point here.

        Obviously censorship is bad. There is no contention in that. My point is this order is the last one in the long standing feud between Musk and Moraes. Musk has been so aggressive in personally attacking the judge. So portraying the judge as someone going on a power trip is not the accurate picture.

        Edit: Adding more info here. The entire information on the freezing bank account and arrest of the legal representative of Twitter Brazil, is from the Twitter Global Affairs handle. They published a “secret order” from the judge. A few things I noticed are these looks like cherry picked pages of a bigger document due to lack of continuity between page 1 and 2. Usually court orders will include the full context of the petition. Second point is the obvious circumventing strategy the Global Affairs of Twitter also states. They reiterate that only “Twitter International” is responsible for compliance, and not “Twitter Brazil”. This absurd argument introduces the problem of jurisdiction. This is just Twitter trying to fly above the law.

        Earlier I said the legal representative was Diego de Lima Gualda, after his resignation they informed that Rachel de Oliveira Vila Nova Conceição will be the new representative. The order says:

        indicates that the representative of the company X BRASIL INTERNET LTDA., RACHEL DE OLIVEIRA VILLA NOVA CONCEIÇÃO, acting in bad faith, is trying to avoid the regular notification of the decision handed down in the proceedings, including by electronic means, of which she has already demonstrated knowledge, with the aim of frustrating its compliance.

        Therefore, given the negative ruling of the summons and the reported impossibility of contacting the legal representative of the aforementioned company, I DETERMINE THAT the lawyers legally appointed by X BRASIL INTERNET LTDA. be IMMEDIATELY INTIMATED, including electronic means, so that they adopt the necessary measures to comply with the order, within 24 (twenty-four) hours, under penalty of:

        (1) DAILY FINE OF R$20,000.00 (twenty thousand reais) to company administrator, RACHEL DE OLIVEIRA VILLA NOVA CONCEIÇÃO (CPF 255.747.418-57), CUMULATIVE THAT IMPOSED ON THE COMPANY, as well as DECREE OF PRISON for disobeying a court order;

        I think these words are self explanatory. Twitter tried to delay the compliance just by making the legal representative unreachable. This along with the argument that Twitter Brazil is not responsible shows a clearer picture of what Twitter was trying to do and what actually happened. Again I don’t see where the “bank account freezing” is written.

        Edit 2: I forgot to state the obvious. The representative who resigned is not the one who faced fines or “decree of prison”. These are two different representatives. Again the representative is facing this because of the actions of Twitter. This is not a case of judicial activism.