There seems to be some confusion in the comments regarding this decision.
This is not an arbitrary decision made in a vacuum. There’s an ongoing judicial inquiry, and the accounts suspended were linked to persons of interest. They’re currently being investigated for crimes in both civil and penal spheres.
The accounts were not banned, they are temporarily suspended for the course of the investigation. Also, it’s explicitly mentioned that, given the evidences (which the accused parties have access to), some individual rights are being suspended, as they’re not shields for committing crimes or avoiding responsibility. The decision also mentions that Constitutional rights don’t exist on their own, they find their limits in the other equally important rights and guarantees contained in the Constitution. This is not some exotic feature of Brazilian law, it’s something also mentioned in the Declaration of Human Rights (which is also cited).
Having said that, all affected parties have the right to contest the measure, this is not an autocratic decision.
Finally, if Facebook and Twitter wants to operate in Brazil, they need to comply with Brazilian laws, including complying with court decisions. You can definitely argue against blocking the information world wide, but similar decisions were made by other democratic countries (like Canada).
> This is not an arbitrary decision made in a vacuum. There’s an ongoing judicial inquiry, and the accounts suspended were linked to persons of interest. They’re currently being investigated for crimes in both civil and penal spheres.
Except that this "judicial inquiry" is anything but lawful. The offended side (the supreme court) is also the inquirer and the judge. There is nothing in the law that allows this, and the constitution plainly prohibits it. They are abusing their power and are censoring activists, journalists and politicians, plain and simple.
> (which the accused parties have access to)
Even the OAB (brazilian akin to advocates' guild) recognized this wasn't the case for at leas two weeks. And when the accused were given access to formal accusation, they only had access to a small chapter of it.
It’s arguably lawful. By the Brazilian Constitution, investigation on crimes committed against the Supreme Court are to be presided and supervised by the court itself. Furthermore, it’s been established that the whatever case comes out of the investigation will be sent to the Attorney General. It’s up to him follow prosecution. So no, they’re not the inquirer and the judge.
Questioning procedures is a healthy part of the democratic game. But it doesn’t change the fact that there’s evidence that crimes we’re committed, and legal action is being taken.
There is a internal regiment that postulates the court investigates crimes within the court. Justices then, by their own, and extrapolating interpretation of the law, came out that the Supreme Court abroads national territory, thus any act against it is considered "within". Does it seem fair to you?
Also, can you enlist a single of said crimes against the court?
There is, though. They will forward the case to the general prosecutor's office, as the law dictates.
> and the constitution plainly prohibits it.
It really doesn't. In fact it mentions explicitly that the Supreme Court in Brazil must oversee the early investigations (before handing them over to the general prosecutor, although that part is not explicit).
I'm not really in favor of it, but this is the reality of the system in place.
> Even the OAB (brazilian akin to advocates' guild) recognized this wasn't the case for at leas two weeks. And when the accused were given access to formal accusation, they only had access to a small chapter of it.
Do you have any source? I tried to google 'Roberto Jefferson OAB', but I found nothing.
Freedom of speech is quite complex and every single country in the world has limits on speech. Japan and the US seem to have the broadest interpretation of freedom of speech, yet both countries have reasonable limits when it comes to obscenity, direct threats of violence, and others.
Many countries under the Crown do not have freedom of speech. In New Zealand, the live stream video from the Christchurch shooting was illegal to possess or distribute, without seeking specific permission (e.g for academic purposes). Most Kiwi's I've talked to considered this reasonable, and even the Americans who immigrated understood and accepted this limit when they choose to apply for residence or citizenship.
Australia doesn't have freedom of speech or a bill or rights, but the state of Victoria (Melbourne) has a charter of human rights.
China has freedom of speech in their constitution.
The freedom isn't the most important part, but the due process of law that comes around fighting for, maintaining and putting reasonable limits on those freedoms.
No, this is not legal. I talk with the leading YouTube influencers in the area. What’s happening is that the highly corrupt Brazilian supreme court has made “fake news” illegal and are arresting top influencers in the country.
The judges are violating constitutional law by going after these people.
Here’s a video on twitter I cut with one of the top influencers (by YouTube subs) explaining the situation.
From a US perspective that type of prior restraint on free speech prior to a criminal conviction just seems bizarre. Regardless of whether or not the suspects accused in this case are actually guilty, it gives the authorities too much power to suppress dissent.
I’m working on a reader app for newsletters (kind of like what Google Reader was). The idea is to remove these things from the mail box and keep it organized in the app.
I’m also planning to add email address obfuscation, similar to what sign-in with Apple provides. That should make it easy to forever unsubscribe from newsletters.
Even though California is much more lax on immigration, undocumented immigrants that work here still work "illegally". And I-9 Audits are conducted by ICE, not California.
Like SpicyLemonZest said, it sounds extremely unlikely that Uber and Lyft, being public, would risk filing fraudulent I-9s.
This is not an arbitrary decision made in a vacuum. There’s an ongoing judicial inquiry, and the accounts suspended were linked to persons of interest. They’re currently being investigated for crimes in both civil and penal spheres.
The accounts were not banned, they are temporarily suspended for the course of the investigation. Also, it’s explicitly mentioned that, given the evidences (which the accused parties have access to), some individual rights are being suspended, as they’re not shields for committing crimes or avoiding responsibility. The decision also mentions that Constitutional rights don’t exist on their own, they find their limits in the other equally important rights and guarantees contained in the Constitution. This is not some exotic feature of Brazilian law, it’s something also mentioned in the Declaration of Human Rights (which is also cited).
Having said that, all affected parties have the right to contest the measure, this is not an autocratic decision.
Finally, if Facebook and Twitter wants to operate in Brazil, they need to comply with Brazilian laws, including complying with court decisions. You can definitely argue against blocking the information world wide, but similar decisions were made by other democratic countries (like Canada).