PauloManrique

> If the Supreme Court says the decision is in accordance with law - and they're the ones with the legal authority to make that assessment, and the Congress has done nothing to reprimand the Supreme Court and overrule their assessment, then the judge's decision, by definition, is in accordance with law.

That's completely false and not how the law works in Brazil.

> The problem as I see it is you disagree with that assessment.

Because it's just plain false.

> Appealing to a vigilante like Musk to settle your internal disagreements is not a wise move, my friend.

Nobody is appealing for Musk, he's just one, of several people affected by that and reacting.

It literally makes zero sense.

> Twitter/X was shut down in Brazil for refusing to declare a legal representative in the country which is a basic requirement for any company operating in Brazil.

Which is a pretty stretch from an older law, that was made to companies operating "phisically", opening offices, having workers and etc.

Twitter closed their offices in Brazil, so they don't need to do it anymore.

If we take the interpretation this judge is using with Twitter to everything, 99% of the internet will need to be blocked in Brazil.

Yes, it is. There's nothing in our laws that backs the judge ruling. And in Brazil, judges can ONLY DO what the law says, not what they think it's fair or what they want.

Because he's not questioning a law, he's questioning the judge not following the law.

Did you said the same when the same justice system did the same to Lula back in 2016? :)

> It appears after the January 8 coup d'état attempt in Brazil

There was no attempt of coup d'état in Brazil, just a bunch of stupid people protesting and breaking public buldings, just like several other groups, for different reasons did the same in the past.

> it was opened an investigation

The investigation itself is illegal, because it's investigating people that should not be investigated by that branch of justice. Our supreme court only judges constitutional matters and politicians on the federal level, not regular citizens.

> Then some xitter profiles started a coordinated threat and doxxing campaign against police investigators who took this case.

That's also false, nobody ever attacked the police.

> So the brazilian supreme court ordered xitter to provide information and block seven profiles involved in this doxxing campaign, what it refused to do.

Which there are no base in the law, which it's the problem being pointed here.

Unlike "Common Law" countries, in Brazil judges can only do what the law says they can do. There's absolutely NOWHERE in our law, that says if someone commits something, their social network profile will be blocked.

> In other words, the judge is not breaking the law.

This doesn't even make sense, the fact congress doesn't do it's job does not mean the judge is not breaking the law.

> What I think I'm hearing you say is you disagree with your checks-and-balances government's application of law, local attempts to change that law has failed for reasons, so now you support vigilantism in order to get around the law you believe was misapplied.

There are no applications of the law, they are just not doing their job period. And "vigilantism" is exactly what the judge is doing.

> Be careful. Brazil isn't recognized as being an authoritarian regime.

It just takes one 10 minutes to learn that Brazilian has an authoritarian justice system.

Yeah, he has the support of the same people that used to hate the judges when Brazilian justice system persecuted Lula when went into jail ilegally.

In the end of the day, people just care if their political agenda is being met, it doesn't matter if it throws the country into a dictatorship.

This part of the Marco Civil talks about logs, and that's not what the judge is requesting. The judge is requesting that social network profiles to be taken down, without telling the person that got the profile taken down the reason - which removes their ability to defend theirselves in the court.

The judge itself is a supreme court justice. Yes, the Brazilian senate can remove the judge, but the current government backs the judge and give money to congress members to use in their constituency, in returns to get their vote on issues, and that includes to prevent the impeachment of the judge.

So yes, the judge is breaking the law, simply because there's nothing in the law that says, for example, that the punishment for something, is the suspension of their social network profile.

That would be analog for cutting the vocal cords of a person that commits an opinion crime. It would be wrong IF we have that in our laws, but we don't.

If someone commit a crime, you punish for the crime. If they commit again, you increase the punishment and so on. There's nothing that can be done to prevent someone on commiting an opinion crime.

> I know people are cheering Musk's breaking the law

He's not breaking the law, the judge is. There are no laws in Brazil that back his decisions.

Because those countries have laws that back their decisions. We don't. We are a democracy, we have laws - and there are no laws that allows the decisions this judge is taking.

Elon is not questioning our laws, or India or Turkey. He is questioning that the judge is not following our laws and he's right.

> No one is questioning why the Brazilian judiciary should have that power. It

That's the point, they don't. There's nothing in the law for him to back his decisions. But we just hope for our senate to take action.

It's still illegal.