Sorry for broken english but I need to contextualize a little bit.
I'm a law student here in Brazil (last semester of university) and the thing is, when you sue a company, the legal representative of the company is normally the owner or CEO when the company is situated within the country, or another appointed worker. What happened was, when Elon closed the brazillian offices of Twitter, they let go of the person that was in charge (as legal representantive of the company), they had and still have a lawyer present in the Case (the subpoena the Supreme Court posted on Twitter was first seen by their lawyer, who signaled being aware of it). So it's not as simple as just hiring another lawyer, he will have to hire someone that is willing to be Legal representantive of this shitshow that we are watching
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.
4.2k
u/jfadras Sep 02 '24
Sorry for broken english but I need to contextualize a little bit.
I'm a law student here in Brazil (last semester of university) and the thing is, when you sue a company, the legal representative of the company is normally the owner or CEO when the company is situated within the country, or another appointed worker. What happened was, when Elon closed the brazillian offices of Twitter, they let go of the person that was in charge (as legal representantive of the company), they had and still have a lawyer present in the Case (the subpoena the Supreme Court posted on Twitter was first seen by their lawyer, who signaled being aware of it). So it's not as simple as just hiring another lawyer, he will have to hire someone that is willing to be Legal representantive of this shitshow that we are watching