Brazil judge opens inquiry into Musk after refusal to block accounts on X ( www.reuters.com )

A standoff between Elon Musk and Brazil escalated on Sunday when a Supreme Court judge opened an inquiry into the billionaire after Musk said he would reactivate accounts on the social media platform X that the judge had ordered blocked.

Musk, the owner of X and a self-declared free speech absolutist, has challenged a decision by Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordering the blocking of certain accounts. He has said X, formerly known as Twitter, would lift all the restrictions because they were unconstitutional and called on Moraes to resign.

Neither Musk, X nor Brazilian authorities have disclosed which social media accounts were ordered blocked. X first posted about the order to block on Saturday but it was not immediately clear when the order was issued.

Moraes is investigating "digital militias" that have been accused of spreading fake news and hate messages during the government of former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro and is also leading an investigation into an alleged coup attempt by Bolsonaro.

FreudianCafe ,

Brasil is becoming a dictatorship. This "judge" is carrying the empires work here. But lets remind where Moraes come from. When Dilma Roussef was thrown out of power in a coup, Michel Temer became the president. This guy was so fucking sold to the USA that people hated him left and right. Well, turns out that the minister that occupied Moraes sit in the supreme court before died in a very convenient plane crash. And then Temer had to appoint someone to substitute him. There came Moraes. He condemned people to 17 years in prison for vandalism, he wipes his ass with the constitution, he censor people who talk things he doesnt like. And the most incredible thing is that the "left" is supporting him in this

jordanlund Mod ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Multiple reports on this comment for "lies and disinformation", and while I don't have a dog in this fight other than to say Moraes is the spitting image of Lex fucking Luthor, the statement that "He condemned people to 17 years in prison for vandalism" is, at best, incorrect. He sentenced them for Brazils equivalent of January 6th:

https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2023/09/14/supreme-court-minister-alexanre-de-moraes-votes-for-sentencing-first-coup-plotter-to-17-years-in-prison

Which is on par with what we see here for some 1/6ers:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4182198-here-are-the-5-longest-jan-6-sentences-so-far/

FreudianCafe ,

Multiple reports on this comment for "lies and disinformation"

Id like to know what is a lie or "misinformation", whatever that means

"He condemned people to 17 years in prison for vandalism" is, at best, incorrect.

How so? Any argument here or just a feeling?

Brazils equivalent of January 6th:

Brasil is one country, USA is another. Different constitutions and criminal codes, etc

Which is on par with what we see here for some 1/6ers:

So what? Different countries

Also, i posted a long comment giving historical context of what is happening. You guys come and censor me without any argument other than "people dont like what you said". Let them downvote me so. If this is "misinformation", let people respond with their own versions and then the readers can decide for themselves.

jordanlund Mod ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

A bunch of people, unhappy with the result of an election, raided the capitol and attempted to overturn that election.

It wasn't simply "vandalism" and attempting to phrase it that way is absolutely a lie.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Brazilian_Congress_attack

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/17/bolsonaro-brazil-coup-report

FreudianCafe ,

It wasn't simply "vandalism" and attempting to phrase it that way is absolutely a lie.

65% of brasilians think it was vandalism and not a coup. But maybe you know better. Anyway, the way you dismissed everything that i said over one statement (wich is correct, according to the brasilian population, and therefore if you disagree its you whos wrong by going against the democratic outcome of the internal discussion) shows a lot. Keep up the great job

https://www.poder360.com.br/pesquisas/65-acham-que-8-de-janeiro-foi-vandalismo-diz-datafolha/

jordanlund Mod ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

It doesn't matter what a majority of Brazilians think, a majority of Americans have been led to believe 1/6 was a harmless tourist event.

They're absolutely wrong about that and the video evidence, charging documents, convictions, and jail time bear that out.

FreudianCafe ,

It doesn't matter what a majority of Brazilians think

Amazing

jordanlund Mod ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Amazing that lawyers and judges know more about criminal charges than average citizens?

w⁠(⁠°⁠ｏ⁠°⁠)⁠w

NateNate60 ,

I'm not a Musk fan by any longshot, but does anyone else think that the State having the power to order social media account bans is a bit... excessive?

orgrinrt ,

Not really. All extremists should have severely limited platforms to spread their hate in, and who else would see to that, if not democratically elected officials? Even if not democratically elected, I would personally trust almost any even remotely democratic government’s official to enforce something like that than to trust in some edgelord billionaire twat like Musk to do anything other than go the other way and signal boost that extremism instead.

And since I believe this, it would be hypocritical of me to criticize Brazil for this very thing, especially if a far-right populist like Bolsonaro (or anyone Musk likes for that matter) is involved.

But you might hold different views. And fair enough. But I firmly believe we should not give platforms to extremists or traitorous assholes, period. And should work to actively limit that, instead.

I.e I would not like to see, for example, ISIS leaders sharing their beheading videos on any social media platform. By that same logic, I would not like any other kind of extremism there either. I can’t just cherry-pick which kind of extremism I like to be limited and banned. If I believe that there exists entities or influences I would not like to spread, I should accept that those influences exist outside of my personally agreed views of what should be limited.

cedarmesa ,
@cedarmesa@lemmy.world avatar

Absolutely not. This is an example of the state doing its job as intended. There is no such thing as an absolute right to free speech and never has been. Absolute free speech would end the human experiment. The real question here is if one human can hoard enough paper power tokens should they be more powerful than nations and unaccountable to nations laws. Musk is asserting the divine right of kings. This supreme court justice is asserting the just power of democracy.

c10l ,

Note that this is not “just banning someone’s account because they don’t like it”. These are people involved in criminal investigations. Shutting them down is meant to plug their criminal activities so society doesn’t get further damaged by them while the police and judiciary work on actually convicting them.

As an aside: I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. I disagree with your view but your question was asked respectfully and in good faith.

echodot ,

Correction. They've been accused of criminal activity but as far as I understand it they haven't actually been found in guilty yet.

jaybone ,

And to the people saying this is ok, is it also okay for china to have accounts banned? Russia, Philippines, brazil, Iran, the US under Trump? Israel? Who gets to decide which countries’ legal systems have this authority?

gravitas_deficiency ,

You’re concern trolling. Don’t concern troll.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • world@lemmy.world
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •