Another important thing is that the judge didn’t decided of his own will for no reason that X/Twitter needs another representative in the country, it’s the law, right?
Our Civil Law Code says that is necessary for every Foreign Company to have a legal representative, what happens is a lot of web companys do not have this LR (I will shorten it like this so I don't get to spell everytime), so what the courts normaly do when there are litigations involving those companies is: 1) The courts will issue a warning to the company; 2) A Fine is established so that the company appoint a LR; 3) If the company has yet to appoint a LR, the Courts can determine the temporary suspension of the activities, then in the last step 4) The Courts can effectively block the activities in the country.
Just to add, the monocratic decision that was given by Moraes (the SC Judge) was just unanemously endorsed by the 1º Class of the Brazilian Supreme Court (that means that another 5 judges agreed with him, but also made him clarify what the infamous fine for people that used VPN, this question in specific is not yet settled.
And to be frank, I don't condone every action that was taken by Moraes, blocking the Starlink accounts was way too far in my opinion (and in the opinions of a lot of progressive and leftist jurists) but Musk really snobbed the brazilian law, while blocking content and accounts in other countries without arguing (Turkey, India), he tried to gamble and it has not (yet) paid off, because the decision to block the app is controversial, but the endorsement of other SC judges and a large part of the Lawyers, Law authors and Professors in Brazil had made it quite clear (to whoever wants to understand) that there is reasoning behind the decision.
At last, I will say that if Musk was not a shithead and Moraes was not so self-absorved and selfish we would not be seing this situation (he is following the law to the letter, but he is only doing this because Musk provoked him to). I would compare it to a unstoppable force meets an imovable object.
At last, I will say that if Musk was not a shithead and Moraes was not so self-absorved and selfish we would not be seing this situation (he is following the law to the letter, but he is only doing this because Musk provoked him to). I would compare it to a unstoppable force meets an imovable object.
That's a completely counterfactual conclusion to reach. This has very little to do with the specific personality of the specific judge. As you just pointed out yourself other jurists agrees with him, from scholars to practicing lawyers to other supreme court judges.
No judiciary anywhere is going to idly suffer such an attack on their authority and legitimacy.
The only instances I'm aware of in history where a judiciary does are the ones where a fascist party/dictatorship takes complete control of the country itself.
I do think you are right in this, I must've shared my personal opinion in a way that's not clear that I think he did the right thing by following our local law
That's a completely counterfactual conclusion to reach. This has very little to do with the specific personality of the specific judge. As you just pointed out yourself other jurists agrees with him, from scholars to practicing lawyers to other supreme court judges.
Depends on what we're talking about. The decisions regarding fining people using VPNs and freezing Starlink's assets have been very controversial and publicly criticized by many here in Brazil.
The decisions of the supreme court also often have a political undertone to them, it's not as black and white as applying the law correctly or not. After 4 years of Bolsonaro being at constant odds with the supreme court, constantly pushing his supporters to see the judges as enemies, finally culminating in the invasion and vandalism or the supreme court by his rabid fan base in January 8th of 2023, the Supreme Court (specially Moraes) have been very personally invested in the topic of regulating online speech in an inherently biased manner.
This is just the latest chapter of a fight Moraes has been fighting for the last 2 or 3 years or so, which got more international attention than it otherwise would due to Musk's involvement. It's easy to see Moraes as "the good guy" in the story when the people on the other side are extremist right wing nutjobs, but a lot of his actions have been very personal and overbearing, and despite hating Bolsonaro I also feel like Moraes seems to be power tripping pretty hard and I find concerning a single judge can do so much on his own.
Yeah, i know.
Though, honestly, to me the VPN's decision sounds like a decoy/sacrificial decision - basically drafted to be repealed, in order to present as a small victory, and keep the main decision.
While i don't argue that Moraes is self-absorbed asshole, he is a very experienced lawyer. I just don't see him drafting a dead (non-implementable) decision just out of spite.
Of course, this is just a personal assumption.
your point is that a part of the brazilian academia is in accordance, and that makes it more rightful.
my point is that, naturally, some other parts of brazilian academia aren't. Like in all big national issues such a this one, this is just politics: The law is at this point a mere justification for the action taken. A means to an end.
So I wasn't making the point that his conclusion is in complete contradiction with the facts he is aware of and outlined?
..and you didn't quote a single sentence out of context to make an irrelevant point that not a single soul is interested in and has no bearing on the discussion?
P.S. The reason I'm not responding to your comment with anything but rhetorical questions is not only that you have missed the point entirely but also because I find everything within your comments to be incredibly dumb and bad analysis.
So I wasn't making the point that his conclusion is in complete contradiction with the facts he is aware of and outlined?
both things can be true at the same time. He can be legally right (I don't know) and he can also be an selfish person using this as an avenue to further his agenda (I don't know) but I'm not going to shut it down because I'm aware of the kind of person he is.
..and you didn't quote a single sentence out of context to make an irrelevant point that not a single soul is interested in and has no bearing on the discussion?
Well, you omitted all what OP said about VPNs (which is what I was mostly referring to) so I guess we're square. And it has bearing since this ruling has just terminated god-knows-how-many users' contracts on the platform from the eggiest 0 follower troll to big accounts with millions of dollars tied to their accounts in obligations and livelihoods.
That's quite a significant decision, to say the least.
P.S. The reason I'm not responding to your comment with anything but rhetorical questions is not only that you have missed the point entirely but also because I find everything within your comments to be incredibly dumb and bad analysis.
I like you, man. You're good people.
Thanks for the explanation and the clarity.
I visited Brazil for the first time earlier this year: stayed in Sao Paulo, Rio, and Bahia. I love your country. Just like any country I'm sure it's got flaws that a tourist wouldn't pick up, but if I was going to live outside of America, it would be on the short list.
Hey, just as a fyi "class" is probably not the best translation for "turma" in this context. There's no direct equivalent in the US legal system, but the best approximation would be "panel". Trying to talk about legal systems in a foreign language is always difficult, I guess.
At last, I will say that if Musk was not a shithead and Moraes was not so self-absorved and selfish we would not be seing this situation (he is following the law to the letter, but he is only doing this because Musk provoked him to). I would compare it to a unstoppable force meets an imovable object.
What do you mean by "Moraes was not so self-absorved and selfish"?
Thanks for the tip! I really didn't know how to translate it and still try to make sense of it.
As for the part that I diss Moraes, I can say that his Ego is gigantic, he is following the law to the letter don't get me wrong, but I do feel that this has become a little of a personal vendetta of his because of the attacks that musk did on him. I guess that if the owner of the company wasn't so dismissive of the Court powers and rulings, and didn't kept attacking the Judge in question, that he would just keep pilling fines upon fines, and not do something so drastic as banning the app, because let's be real, that's a gigantic step to take and it can (and it is) be ill-received by a large part of the international community
Thanks for the tip! I really didn't know how to translate it and still try to make sense of it.
Sure thing! I had to do a little research to find the best translation, I knew "class" wasn't it but also wasn't immediately sure about what the correct term would be because SCOTUS doesn't do things like STF does.
As to Alexandre de Moraes, I think his problem isn't so much his ego as is his sort of "Batman syndrome", he's always been a bit of the sort that believes that the ends justify the means if it's done in the name of Justice. He's obviously not super thrilled about what Elon has been saying about him personally, but I do believe his biggest problem is with the blatant disregard for the rule of law and the disrespect towards the Court. I also think that at least for now the reception from the international community has mostly been positive, Elon has been crossing too many lines in too many places for it to be otherwise.
That said, it's ironic that a bunch of people that were against his nomination to the STF had a problem with his authoritarian tendencies, but the people who are now whining about him wanted him because they never thought they'd be the ones in the crosshairs. I can't help but enjoy the schadenfreude, not gonna lie.
Sinceramente é uma estratégia dele em arrumar forças pro argumento de que agora não é mais uma decisão só dele. Acho que de qualquer modo seria muito mais justo e até mais republicano levar ao plenário do STF, a questão que a chamada de que foi "referendado por unanimidade" é algo que chama muita atenção.
No fim das contas ainda seria uma votação 9x2, até possível um 10x1 considerando que Mendonça não tem divergido tanto em votações assim, o Nunes Marques seria bem voto vencido.
It is more in a legal and jurisprudential kind of way of speaking. Law dictates that if the companies are part of the same economic group this can happen, but in the case of Starlink/X the thing connecting them is Elon, this can and will create some sort of legal uncertainty on next decisions on disregard of legal personality (I translated the term, really don't know if it has the same connotation in both languages)
Since I am not sure if you understand Portuguese, I will put the Deepl translation here for you:
“The determination is based on article 75 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure, which stipulates that foreign legal entities must have a representative in the country so that they can be duly summoned and respond in court. Failure to comply with this requirement can result in penalties, including the suspension of the company's operations in the country, as provided for in article 77 of the same code, which deals with the consequences of bad faith litigation and non-compliance with court orders.”
And:
“The STF's decision to require a legal representative for X is not just a procedural formality, but a measure aimed at ensuring the company's responsibility under the Brazilian legal system. This requirement is in line with Law No. 12.965/2014 (Marco Civil da Internet), which, in its articles 10 and 11, imposes the need to comply with Brazilian law for companies that offer internet services in the country, ensuring that they can be held responsible for illegal acts committed through their platforms.”
your initial statement is just moronic, obeying a country's laws, especially when ordered so by the highest court of that state does not equal becoming a puppet
150
u/anninnha Sep 02 '24
Another important thing is that the judge didn’t decided of his own will for no reason that X/Twitter needs another representative in the country, it’s the law, right?