Brazil has not just banned X (formerly Twitter) from the entire country, but citizens will now be fined $9000 a day (more than the average salary in the country) for using VPNs to access the platform. X is the main source of news for Brazilians, who will now be left with government-approved sources or face financial ruin in seeking unfettered information.
The Guardian is reporting that the confiscatory fines are part of a comprehensive crackdown on efforts to get news through X, including ordering all Apple stores to remove X from new phones.
The move puts Brazil with China in the effort to create a wall of censorship between citizens and unregulated information.
For the anti-free speech movement, Brazil is a key testing ground for where the movement is heading next. European censors are arresting CEOs like Pavel Durov while threatening Elon Musk.
However, it is Brazil that foreshadows the brave new world of censorship where entire nations will block access to sites committed to free speech values or unfettered news. If successful, the Brazilian model is likely to be replicated by other countries.
The reason is that censorship is not working. As discussed in my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” we have never seen the current alliance of government, corporate, academic, and media interest against free speech. Yet, citizens are not buying it.
Despite unrelenting attacks and demonizing media coverage, citizens are still using X and resisting censorship. That was certainly the case in Brazil where citizens preferred X to regulated news sources. The solution is now to threaten citizens with utter ruin if they seek unfettered news.
The question is whether Brazil’s leftist government can get away with this. The conflict began with demands to censor supporters of the conservative former president Jair Bolsonaro. When X refused the sweeping demands for censorship, including the demand to name a legal representative who could be arrested for refusing to censor users, the courts moved toward this national ban.
The man behind the effort is Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has aggressively used censorship to combat anything that he or the government deems “fake news” or disinformation. With socialist president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, they are the dream team of the anti-free speech movement.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison responded to the ban with a posting declaring “Obrigado Brasil!” or “Thanks, Brazil!” Ironically, he did so on X.
Ellison previously praised the virulently anti-free speech group Antifa and promised that it would “strike fear in the heart” of Donald Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence and its website was banned in Germany. It is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. That purpose is evident in what is called the “bible” of the Antifa movement: Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.
Bray emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’” Bray admits that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists… From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”
The question is whether Brazil will become a nightmare for free speech around the world as other nations seek to force citizens to read and hear news from approved, state-monitored sites.
Jonathan: Along with Minnesota’s AG Keith Ellison I say “Obrigado Brazil!”. Why? Contrary to your claim this isn’t a “free speech” issue in Brazil. As pointed out in a previous comment the fight is about Musk’s refusal to appoint a registered agent in Brazil–a law that applies to all businesses doing business in the largest country in South America.
What is remarkable is that in every state in the US there are similar laws. In California any company that wants to do business in the state must appoint a registered agent to receive important information re new state laws and service of process in litigation. Musk’s X is still headquartered in CA and he has complied with CA’s law.
So why does Musk refuse to comply with Brazil’s law? The only answer is that Musk mistakenly believes that he is above the law–that foreign laws don’t apply to him. As President Lula de Silva pointed out about the dispute: “Any and all citizens from anywhere in the world who have investments in Brazil are subject to the Brazilian constitution and Brazilian laws. Lula also said that Musk “must respect the decision of the Brazilian Supreme Court…If not, this country will never be sovereign”.
But Musk bizarrely thinks he is a “sovereign” who can decide for himself what laws he will abide by and which he can ignore. The answer to the dispute is simple. Musk needs to appoint a registered agent in Brazil and the ban on X will be lifted.
Word!
and the word is billschiff. As is usual Dennis and those on the left do not know what they are talking about.
First of all, it’s not quite the same thing as a registered agent in the US, and second, what the heck does some petty legal registration have to do with FINING CITIZENS $9,000/DAY for accessing the platform? You are making excuses for a government that is using cruel and unusual punishment to penalize citizens simply for viewing the platform. What Musk did is irrelevant, it’s just the excuse to stop the citizens from getting other news.
Is it cruel and unusual according to their constitution? Why are you comparing it to ours?
The Brazilian constitution is a mirror of ours. Prior to de Moreas Brazil had some of the strongest freee speech protections in the world.
The law and constitution have not changed. Only a few powerful leaders.
This is called the rule of man, not law – when the meaning of the constitution changes radically because of changes in the people.
“ The Brazilian constitution is a mirror of ours.”
Word for word ? Can you prove for a fact that they are?
Here’s the actual document. It appears they have way more amendments than ours.
https://www.oas.org/es/sla/ddi/docs/acceso_informacion_base_dc_leyes_pais_b_1_en.pdf
You should look at chapter 1 section 12 (XII).
It backs up the court’s power to shut down X apparently.
It’s amazingly detailed and to the point. It’s definitely not a mirror of our own.
Congradulations – you have finally done some actual research rather than just making things up.
You should actually bother to look things up BEFORE you start stupidly pontificating on them.
Absolutely the constitution and laws of other nations are different from ours and each other.
But they are NOT Radically different – ignoring the “communist” nearly all of the world is patterned after Napoleonic France, the UK or the US. Identical – nope. But close enough that a US law degree would better qualify you to practice law in Brazil than Lousiana – becuase Brazilian constitution and law is US derived and Louisiana is Napoleonic.
I do not know what world you think C1S12 backs de Moreas up. It merely says that a court can obtain private communications in a criminal investigation by court order.
Maybe you can actually quote whatever you think this grant of power to the courts is.
That is true in the US and most of the west.
Regardless de Moreas is not asking for private communications. He is asking to censor speech – are you really so daft as to beleive those are the same thing ?
And yes Brazils constitution is a mirror of our own – no it is not word for word. No one said that.
It creates the same federal govenrment with the same federal structure, in the same republican fashion with the same branches of government with the same separation of powers.
“ The law and constitution have not changed.”
Yes, it has changed. It’s been amended far more than ours.
The last amendment 64 was in 2010 – de Moreas was ap[pointed in 2017.
If you are going to rant at reading comprehansion – try some yourself.
NO ONE said the Brazillian law and constitution has NEVER changed.
What has NOT changed is the constitutional right to free speech and the law on free speech since de Moreas was appointed.
Or are you too daft to grasp that ?
X ceased doing business in Brazil some time ago. With respect to Brazil they are just about news site on the internet – no different from say KTLA.
de Moreas is pissed because Brazillians still get their news through X.
Brazilian reporters post on X where de Moreas can not censor them.
And Brazillian people read those reporters.
The de Moreas censorship regime throughly undermined Brazillians trust in media so many are using X.
THEIR CHOICE.
One the left wing nuts here want to bar.
The business license stuff is FALSE. Again I doubt KTLA has a registered representative in Brazil.
@Dennis, EXACTLY! +100
I doubt there is a single fact that Dennis has gotten right – so high fiving him is tar babbying yourself to his errors.
John, he’s right. Did you look at their constitution?
https://www.oas.org/es/sla/ddi/docs/acceso_informacion_base_dc_leyes_pais_b_1_en.pdf
You doubt it without verifying it for yourself. That means you don’t know for sure. Perhaps you should find out before accusing him of not knowing what he’s talking about.
“John, he’s right. Did you look at their constitution?”
He who and right about what ?
If you want to be taken seriously write clearly.
I am not going to search the brazially constitution for a claim that you are not even capable for uttering clearly.
NO the Brazilian constitution does NOT support your nonsense – and the section you referred to clearly does not.
It comes close to saying the opposite.
That is presuming I have the correct reference – since you cited it poorly and did not quote anything – that would be YOUR problem.
“
@Dennis, EXACTLY. +100
Dennis,
The Brazilian constitution is very nearly the same as ours.
Until de Moreas started this nonsense Brazil was one of the nations in the world with the strongest free speech protections – that originate in the Brazilian constitution just as Ours do.
Brazil has a bicameral legislature – just like the US – because their constitution is nearly identical.
That legislature passes laws, Which are then enforced byt he exacture and adjudicated by the judiciary.
de Moreas is a Supreme court Justice – in a system that is near identical to the US and follows the same common law system.
Judges do NOT have the power in brazil to make law. They do not have the power to censor people. They do not have the power to drag people who are not part of a case or controversy before the court into court.
The Brazillian system has gone entirely off the rails in a very short time.
This is not about following Brazillian law – there is no brazillian law to allow What de Moreas is doing, and if there were it ould be unconstitutional as it is in the US.
The idiots here on the left that claim Brazil is a different country with its own system are mostly incorrect.
Brazil is a different country with its own laws and constitution – that are patterned directly after ours.
Musk is NOT violating any Brazilian law. There i9s no law in Brazil that allows what is being done. Further though Lulu barely holds the presidency, the legislature is near evenly split and there is very little that Lulu can constitutionally do without the consent of the legislature.
Nor has the Brazillian legislature passed laws permitting the nonsense that is going on.
Nor would they.
At the top of the list of people that De Moreas wants censored at Brazilian legislators.
While de Moreas and Lulu are unlikely alies – they are in effect working towards the same ends – much as Democrats in this country.
They are looking to censor their political opponents to control the outcome of elections.
They are looking to jail them to control the outcome of elections.
The Braziian election between Lulu and Bolsanaro remains disputed. De Moreas started this censorship regime While Bolsanaro was president and actively looked to choke Bolsonaro’s ability to get his message out through the media. What occured in Brazil makes the Hunter Biden laptop supression look tame. Even Glenn Greenwald who was Targeted by the Bolsanaro regime and supported Lulu Beleives it is likely that de Moreas’s illegal and unconstitutional conduct tipped the election to Lulu.
Further there are to this day completelyt uninvestigated claims of election fraud – just as there were in 2020.
There is plenty of reason to suspect the election was rigged in multiple ways.
Oh, and did I mention that the Biden administration was actively involved in influencing the outcome of the election ?
As to the claim that X is defying Brazillian law by not having a representative in Brazil – that is FALSE.
X ceased doing business in Brazil. Brazilians have access to X because X is on the internet generally.
de Moreas has ordered that ISP’s block X, as he did previously with Rumble. de Moreas does not have the power to do so.
But like many many other things – he has done it anyway.
Now de Moreas has manufactured the power to fine Brazilian citizens for using VPN’s.
There is no actual law barring the US of VPN’s in brazil – there is not even law that allows de Moreas to order ISP’s to stop carrying X.
Regardless X has remoived all its people from Brazil and no longer does business in brazil.
The ranting of de Moreas that X is magically subject to his jurisdiction is complete malarkey.
That is like saying that the New York Times is subject to an out control judge in Brazil’s jurisdiction because some people in Brazil read NYT online.
There are alot of Brazilians who use X for news – as Turley states – that is because de Moreas has bullied the media INSIDE brazil into submission and therefore Brazillian citizens have gone elswhere. They are getting their news from X and from Rumble – because neither of those caved to de Moreas.
They have shutdown all operations in Brazil and are essentially providing Brazilians services for Free.
I would further note that de Moreas has gone frothing mad as evidenced by his current efforts to seize funds from Starlink – because Musk is a major shareholder in both. That is a violation of both brazilian and international law.
The entire basis for a corporation is that legal liability is confined to the corporation – not the shareholders. Common shareholders between two companies does not change the fact that their are independent companies. Even common officers between the companies does not change that.
This is another stupid move by de Moreas – Musk has two options – he can cease Starlink operations in Brazil, and shut brazillian customers down.
Starlink is a huge deal in Brazil and a significant portion of the country is sufficiently remote as toi have no other choice for internet.
Starlink is also a problem for de Moreas as they are not a brazil based ISP – Starlink has no equipment in Brazil – it is all 20,000 miles up in space.
Regardless Starling can cease business in Brazil shutting down internet to massive numbers of brazillians.
Or Musk can quit charging for Starlink in Brazil and close all offices in Brazil.
Regardless it is unwise for a nut job Brazilian judge to go toe to toe with a Billionaire whose net worth is 1/4 of Brazil’s GDP.
But lets specifically address de Moreas fining people for using VPN’s.
Can you cite any actual brazilian law barring Brtazillians from using VPN’s
How do you think it would go over in the US if Justice Sotomayor declare VPN’s illegal and announced that people would get fined 9K/day for using them ?
How long would Sotomayor remain a justice do you think if she tried ?
Further what is it that we call regimes that try to block the ability of their own citizens to get news and information other than that blessed by the government ? Totalitarian.
In what world is it acceptable for unelected government to disregard the wishes of 10’s of millions of people and decide for them what they are free to read or view ?
In the cold war the US went out of its way to ASSURE that he Eastern Block had access to news and information that was censored by the USSR.
Are Voice of America and Radio Free Europe criminal organizations ? What about anon-petit.fi – the anonymous remailer in finland – the Telegram of its era that allowed Sopviet disidents secure communications with the west that the USSR could not trace or censor. Were those criminal organizations ?
BTW Elison is etiehr a member of or a supporter of antifa – depending on the day, and a far far left wing nut.
“ Now de Moreas has manufactured the power to fine Brazilian citizens for using VPN’s.”
Apparently he can do that. You really should look at their constitution. It’s amazingly detailed and it’s far more comprehensive than ours.
https://www.oas.org/es/sla/ddi/docs/acceso_informacion_base_dc_leyes_pais_b_1_en.pdf
Germany’s constitution is even better. It has more rights than ours.
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html
We definitely need to update ours.
There is no apparently – if you are going to make a claim – Back it up.
No Justice in brazil has previously done the crap de Moreas has so the answer to “apparently” would be NO.
Saying the Brazilian constitution is larger means What ?
Saying the German constitution has more rights says what ?
This is not about word count.
The following are in the US constitution
No detailed enumeration of rights in any other country is likely to be as broad as these.
One of the reasons that I find Dobbs and Thomas to be wrongly decided is that the 9th amendment as well as several earlier amendments require a right to control of your own body. Government can not sterilize you by force – Bell v. Buck was wrongly decided.
Government may not vacinate you by force, it may not take your blood by force, it may not require you to continue to host a fetus until birth.
But it can require that it is removed in such a way that it may survive.
Regardless – actually read those amendments.
The US constitution specifically and all constitutions generally are drawn to dictate the powers that governments have.
Governments only have the powers granted by the constitution – everything else is barred. Everything else is a right of the people, a power of the people or a priviledge and immunity of the people.
BTW the 14th amendment priviledges and immunities clause was SPECIFICALLY because SCOTUS prior to the civil war had read the 9th amendment too narrowly. The legislative history of the Priviledges and immunites clause was supposed to be a bitch slap to SCOTUS.
It was also specifically to ensure that free blacks in the south had the right to firearms.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Dennis – No there is no US state that requires you to have a registered agent in that state.
I have personally done business in NY, Idaho, GA, CA, and untold other US states and some foreign countries.
Most of my businesses are registered in PA and ONLY PA.
Atleast one of my businesses inot registered anywhere – in the US and much of the world you can do business under your own name without registering anywhere.
As is Typical – left wing nuts make stupid over broad claims about laws they do not know.
As a rule – though NOT an absolute one – you can not do business with a state government without registering in that state.
As a rule businesses register in all the places they do business in order to protect trademarks and to protect their name.
I can not stop someone from opening a business with the same or a very similar name to mine in a different state, without registering my business in that state. As long as I am OK with that – I have no need to register in that state.
There is also in the US no such thing as a federal business registration.
As is typical left wing nuts make stupid claims abotu laws they do not know and often do not even exist.
Musk has solved his problems in Brazil.
He shutdown all operations in Brazil.
Brazillians are free to subscribe to X or not as they please. Just as people anywhere else in the world.
X no longer does business in Brazil. They do not take adds from companies in Brazil, they do not have offices in brazil.
They do not have servers or equipement in brazil. Brazilians access to X is either through Brazilian ISP’s who can block X or through Brazilian citizens chosing to use a third party VPN. Which they MIGHT be doing to access X or to watch Netflix in the US or for whatever their personal reasons might be.
Just as people in China use VPN’s to bypass chinese government censorship.
The only difference between China and Brazil right now is that so far Brazil is only blocking X and Rumble. China is blocking and filtering the world.
Regardless it is not X’s obligation to make it impossible for people in Brazil to access X. They have merely chosen not to do business in Brazil and not to have a physical presence in Brazil, and as such they are no more subject to Brazilian courts than KTLA in the US is.
Does everyone who has a website in the world have to have a registered agent in brazil – because their content might be accessible in Brazil ?
Personally I am hoping that Musk shutsdown starlink operations in Brazil, but eitehr continues to provide starlink to Brazil for free, or allows Brazilian starlink customers – so long as they pay for service using bank accounts outside of Brazil.
This is a very stupid fight for de Moreas to get into.
Musk will do fine.
Dennis – Lula’s statement “Any and all citizens from anywhere in the world who have investments in Brazil are subject to the Brazilian constitution and Brazilian laws. ”
Is FALSE and you should already know that – it is false as a matter of international law.
Do you have a 401K ? IF so you have invested in many things that you likely do not even know about – some of those may have investments in Brazil.
You are not subject to brazilian law merely because you are an investor in something that has some times to Brazil.
But this is even worse than that – X has NO INVESTMENTS IN BRAZIL. It has shutdown everything in Brazil. It owns no assets in Brazil.
As a seaparate matter – I doubt
Musk has a problem being subject to the Brazilian constitution and law. Brazil has the same constitutional free speech protection as the US and de Moreas (and Lulu) are operating outside of Brazillian law.
They are doing so because the brazilian legislature is almost evenly split. Lulu does not control it – he can not get the garbage laws he wants past.
All this brazilian censorship is being done through the brazillian judiciary – with the assistance of the Brazilian executive, without actual legal or constitutional authority.
Nor should that be surprising.
It is probable that Lulu would never have been elected but for de Moreas’s massive censorship of brazillian news.
It is likely that Lulu can never be elected again in Brazil in a free and fair election. But there are unlikely to be free and fair elections in a long time. Lulu has been rounding up political enemies, arresting them, and jailing them without trial.
No the ban on X will not be lifted if X appoints a registered agent – which is NOT required by anyting but Moreas made up law.
What will happen is that agent will be arrested and held hostage until X agrees to censor whoever de Moreas demands.
John, this is not made up law. This was also the case with WhatsApp a few years ago. They were also required do to have a representative and when they did get one they were allowed to operate as usual.
Yes george it is made up law.
In my municipality pest control is the responsibility of tenants – that is the actual law.
Numerous times the localk buildings inspectors have asked me to have an apartment exterminated.
The fact that I chose not to fight them and hire an exterminator does not change the law.
Regardless de Moreas is playing games. He has a serious problem – because courts here cases and controversies.
If he had a valid case or controversy – all he would have to do ies enter a default judgement when there is no representative.
But de Moreas does not want to do that – because Musk will ignore it and no court in the US will enforce it.
X has elminated its presence in Brazil – de Moreas has no jurisdiction.
De Moreas is requiring X to appoint a representative in Brazil because that gives Brazil jurisdiction – because there is an actual representative of X in brazil therefore they are presumptively engaged in business in brazil. Further though there is no way under either US or Brazilian law that de Moreas would have the power to imprison a companies representative for refusing to censor people. That ios precisely what de Moreas has done.
He has imprisoned many people without charges for no crime merely for writing stories he did not like or refusing to censor.
WhatasApp apparently decided they did not wish to stand up to de Moreas. Probably because they do not have more money than god.
Musk has.
He has excellent legal advice and checkmated de Moreas – absent the Biden administration violating the US constitution – which the supreme court would likely toss – Brazil can not reach Musk in the US.
I noted about that de Moreas has jailed people without charging them – much less convicting them of a crime.
There is a reason for that – even the brazilian constitution grants criminals rights – further the Brazilian supreme court – like the US supreme court is NOT for most things a court of original jurisdiction – that means it can not typical Try people. That is done at lower courts. And even the lower courts that are favorable to de Moreas and Lulu are far less likely to stretch the law and constitution so far. They will want charges filed, and that triggers lots of indivual rights.
These structures exist in the US – and much of the world for a reason – to PREVENT exactly the nonsense that de Moreas is up to.
John, I think the EU has such a representative requirement, and I believe it is so a government can have a local address to send notices to rather than relying on guesswork that can change. Some companies act as such representatives so that anything sent to them is legally received.
I should have added that the requirement is merely for convenience. Svelaz’s ideas are ludicrous. The use of this requirement by De Moraes is an act similar to those of the Nazis and Stalin. Svelaz doesn’t know it, but his ideology, as represented by himself, is no better than that of the Nazis or Stalinists.
You are correct in all that you say to him, but because he lacks basic knowledge, his responses are mostly word salads containing ideas of intelligent people and lies. His ideas are worthless.
No they were not allowed to operate as usual – they were allowed to operate in conformance with the unconstitutional dictates of de Moreas.
Those are not the same thing.
de Moreas’s entire purpose for demanding a personal representative is to be able to take them hostage and threaten them with jail.
Musk solve the problem by removing X from de Moreas’s juristiction .
Brazillians can still get X – it is available on the interent – like Ford, the local AAA, KTLA and myriads of other web sites.
de Moreas can unconstitutionally force Brazilian ISP’s to block X or go to jail. Those ISP’s have large numbers of people in Brazil that de Moreas can jail without trial or charges. So they will kowtow to a petty tyrant.
de Moreas can also unconstitutionally threaten brazillian X users if they use a VPN – he has no authority in the law or constitution to do so.
But that has not stopped him so far.
Again we are witnessing the rule of man not law.
This is not about X or Musk.
This is about the rights of Brazilian citizens to get news that is not censored by a Judge who is acting lawlessly outside of the Brazilian constitution and outside of Brazilian law.
The positionj that you are Taking Dennis is EXACTLY the equivalent to having Justice Thomas in the US decide what politicians to through in jail for no reason other than they offended him and to shutdown all news media in the US that does not report favorably on Thomas’s actions.
X has shtdown operations in brazil, they have no presence in brazil, they make no money in brazil. They have no investment in brazil.
Brazilians were free to access X or not as the CITIZENS chose. de Moreas did not get to decide for them what they were free to read or view.
de Moreas did not like that so now he is fining Brazilians for Chosing to use a VPN to access X.
Using X is a choice of 10’s of millions of Brazilians.
Only a left wing nut like you would think that de Moreas and Lulu are fre to decide what tens of millions of others are allowed to access.
I would note AGAIN that de Moreas has been acting outside of Brazillian law and constitution for a long time.
X was trying to challenge this in the brazilian courts on the basis of brazilian law and constitution – but that is futile when the Brazilian supreme court has gone rogue.
What you are seeing in Brazil is a perfect example of the rule of law – not man.
What is being done violates the brazilian constitution and has no authority in brazillian law.
Buit because a FEW men have gained power at the top of the courts and the government and can get away with disregarding the constitution and law,
they get to make up brazillian law and constitution as they please.
This is precisely the circumstances that the right to the people to alter and abolish the government – through elections or through FORCE if necescary.
It is highly unlikely that Brazil will have another free and fair election again before Lulu dies.
We had a version of this in Chile decades ago. Socialist Salvador Allende sort of took power in a brokered election. He then disbanded the congress that was part of the deal that brought him to power. The Chilean Supreme court declared his actions unconstitutional, so Allende sought military assistance from Cuba, and when the Chilean military learned that they deposed him in a Coup.
Regardless as with Lulu and de Moreas, the goal is to retain and expand power without having to win elections to do so.
End brazilian censorship and the jailing of political oposition and Lulu can serve the remainder of his term and in actually free and fair elections Brazillians can decide if they want him to serve another term. But that is not what is going on in Brazil.
Lula likely only gained power in rigged elections. Regardless, Lulu/ de Moreas are trying to jail enoguh of the oposition in the legislature to do as they please. And Jail anyone who presents a strong enough political threat to Lulu.
What we are seeing in Brazil is much like what we saw decades ago in Venezuela.
And if Brazil is not fixed soon – we can expect 10’s of millions of Brazillians to flee to the US as one of the largest economies in south america collapses.
“ This is about the rights of Brazilian citizens to get news that is not censored by a Judge who is acting lawlessly outside of the Brazilian constitution and outside of Brazilian law.”
They can still get their news. They have Facebook, and access to other sources besides X.
The judge is acting within the law it seems. The constitution gives him that power.
“They can still get their news. They have Facebook, and access to other sources besides X.”
ROFL
The reason that Brazillians have gone to X for their News is that it is the only source that de Moreas has not censored.
No there is nowhere else that Brazilians can go to hear the news uncensored by de Moreas – and that is EXACTLY what this is all about.
“The judge is acting within the law it seems. The constitution gives him that power.”
Nope. He is a judge on the supreme court – he does not have the power to change the constitution, to create new laws or amendments, to investigate crimes and violations of the law, to bring charges, to prosecute crimes or briong civil suits. All of these are powers or other branches of govenrment or powers and rights of individuals. This is always how it is in a 3 branch federal constitutional republic.
it is that way specifically to preclude exactly this and the similar show trials of the USSR and CCP.
it is specifically because the courts must determine whether the state has properly applied the law that the courts are denied all these other powers.
Your defense of this nonsense is absurd. Lets pretend that your warped understanding of Brazillian law and constitution applied in the US.
After all you seem to have no problem with de Moreas’s conduct – or are you arguing that de Moreas is behaving immorally, but within the brazillian law and constution ?
If as appears to be the case you beleive de Moreas is behaving morally – then why can’t Thomas imprison Zuckerberg ?
People keep pointing out to you that your arguments are indistinguishable for those of the Nazi’s
While you are in error – de Moreas is NOT following brazils law or constitution. If Lulu and de Moreas mange to get their way and imprison of silence all opposing legislators, Brazils law and constitution might well in the future allow this.
Censoring people is wrong – for the same reason that enslaving people is wrong – censorship is a form of slavery. It is wrong just as genocide is wrong.
It is wrong whether a country has made it legal and constitutional or not.
As Jefferson wrote and is inscribed arround the rotunda at the jefferson memorial
I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD ETERNAL HOSTILITY AGAINST EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN
Dennis can you name something that you have been right about – really ever ?
You ranted about Trump at Arlington. Increasingly it appears that EVERYTHING was just made up nonsense By Harris.
No one can confirm there was even a scuffle – which never made sense – do you think someone from ANC was going to tussle with the Secret Service ?
The Families of the dead soldiers confirmed they invited Harris, Biden and Trump – Trump came. The event was THEIR event – not Trumps. Trump spoke BREIFLY when asked and only about their children – not politics. Pitctures were taken at the request of the families and Rep. Issa confirmed the protocol for the entire visit 2 weeks in advance with ANC. And the ticktok video of the visit was not released until AFTER Harris had her hissy fit on X.
a slew of Gold Star families have come out excoriating Harris over trying to politicize this and for never showing up, and for getting their sons and daughters killed – after all she was the last person in the room with Biden when decisions were made and the last voice heard.
Even Sen. Cotten – himself a former member of the Old Guard one of the prestigious honor guards for the tomb of the unknown soldier made clear nothing improper occured.
And as I pointed out to you – every politician of note has been videoed laying a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier.
I have no idea if there is federal law barring poltiical activity at Arlington. I do know that this did not violate such a law if such a law existed, and if such a law existed – like the stolen valor act, it would be unconstitutional.
But the worst of this is that all it did was draw attention to Trump’s actual committment to soldiers – something that YOU lie about constantly.
Draw attention to the failings of Harris/Biden and draw attention to Walz’s “stolen valor” claims.
The law criminalizing “stolen valor” is unconstitutional – but that does not prevent us from looking down on those who lie about their service as Walz has.
It Drew attention to the fact that Trump started no new wars as president, that the world was safer for evenryon. That Trump did not waste the lives of our soldiers.
And in a way it drew attention to Trump’s assassination attempt and his own valor.
And this is just ONE example of your many errors.
For over a month you have been touting Harris 5 or 10 pt lead in the polls.
RCP has only finally had Harris with a tiny lead recently – even though 30 days ago you were claiming a lead.
Further her lead is droping – every single poll featured by RCP in the past couple of days has had Trump ahead nationawide and ahead or tie in battle grounds. Even Michigan is in play and VA is possible.
While the EC is a dead heat – the betting odds have returned to favor Trump.
And the debate is coming – if Harris even shows.
This debate is different from the June debate. Biden had a very low bar to reach – and failed.
While Harris does not have to win this debate – something that will not happen, she has to appear competent and able to think on her feet without a teleprompter or notes. We recently saw her at a softball interview – That performance will NOT be good enough, and this will be harder.
I have no idea what Trump’s stratgey will be – except that he is a master debater – he managed to hold his ground against Biden 4 years ago with Covid.
I though Trump using Gabbard as an advisor was brilliant strategy. Gabbard knocked Harris out of the 2020 race.
Harris is so terrified of Gabbard that she likely put her on the terrorist watch list.
No matter Gabbard is flying with Trump now.
Regardless, I am not sure that Trump will look to knock Harris out as Gabbard did. But Harris has to spend the next couple of days worrying that he will.
Harris does poorly when she is anxious. She does poorly without a script, she does poorly extremporaneously. And she historically is piss poor at Prep.
Even the Senate is looking good for Republicans. WV is in the bag, Larry hogan is in a dead heat in MD which was not supposed to be in play, and Testor has fallen behind in MT. With many many other incombent democrats in incredibly tight races.
WV alone gives the senate to the GOP if Trump wins, and Any one other seat gives it to the GOP regardless.
It’s strange that Turley never mentions censorship efforts in Israel against Palestinian account holders or prevent information from Gaza. Anything critical of Israel is labeled anti-Semitic. But…..free speech. Elon, the free speech absolutist has no problem granting the Israeli government’s requests to censor Palestinian account holders or organizations critical of Israel. Turley is silent on the issue. But Brazil? On no, it’s an egregious affront to free speech.
Turley is quite selective, isn’t he? Lol.
Whataboutism at its finest. Does that mean it’s OK for Brazil to fine its citizens $9,000/day to view X?
If it’s legal in Brazil then it is ok for them to do that. It’s THEIR country.
George loves acting like a third grader. Some really profound stuff there.
The Uyghurs??? It’s China’s country.
Apartheid?? It was South Africa’s country.
Keep repeating it, Svelaz. You look really smart.
Reading comprehension still seems to be your biggest problem. Sigh.
You just said that.
Sating stupid shit still seems to be your problem.
Sigh.
No poroblem with reading comprehension – but facts and critical thinking a major problems with your remarks.
You rant about Israel. If you are supporting what is going on in Brazil – then what possible problem can you have with Israel – after all it is THEIR country.
Why can;t israel just exterminate the palestinians ? Why couldn’t the germans extermninate the jews – after all it was THEIR country.
John, you too? Reading comprehension seems to be a conservative failing.
“ You rant about Israel. If you are supporting what is going on in Brazil – then what possible problem can you have with Israel – after all it is THEIR country.”
Clearly you’re not paying attention.
I never said I am supporting what is going on in Brazil. I’m only saying that those criticizing Brazil’s actions are basing and comparing it to OUR judicial and constitutional principles. They have THEIR OWN LAWS and they are enforcing X to adhere to them because X is being allowed to operate IN Brazil. That’s it.
Turley is critical of Brazil, accusing them of censorship while Israel is doing the same thing with Palestinians using social media to express their views. X is happily obliging.
The rest of your response is pure gibberish. You’re better than that.
I have asked you for evidence that X is censoring – either driven by the Israeli govenrment or otherwise speech that is generally accepted as permitted(in the US as we are using that as a reference for what is accpetable restriction of speech adn what is not).
Everything I have seen thus far demonstrates the OPPOSITE – that the only news allowed out of Gaza is what Hamas allows.
Regardless if you have actual evidence of Israel censoring something that in the US can not be censored – please provide and example and I will join in Condemning X for censorship.
I am glad Musk is taking a stand in Brazil. I hope he shutsdown Starlink Brazil while continueing to provide Brazillians access to the internet via Starlink. I hope he gives a giant middle finger to de Moreas.
but I have seen are occasions where Musk has censored things inconsistent with free speech.
Musk HAS conformed to the laws in the EU – mostly, even when he should not have.
And I find Musks community notes as offensive as the same nonsense on youtube – even though I am more inclide to agree with the notes on X. That is not the point – if you want to comment on someones post COMMENT on it. If a post actually incites violence or includes kiddie porn or something else that is near universally accepted as out of bonds – THEN censor it. Anything short of that requires no comment from the platform, all commenting can be down by USERS.
Regardless I have asked you for evidence of this censorship by Musk or Israel and you have not provided it.
Which is pretty typical.
Therefore I am left to conclude you have no such evidence and as usual you are lying.
Reading comprehension is still a big issue with you it seems.
It was legal to kill Jews in Germany back in the 30s and 40s. Was that okay, too? That’s your “logic,” isn’t it?
No, that’s not my logic. You’re way off now. Not even in the ballpark.
Your pathetic argument was “If it’s legal in Brazil then it is ok for them to do that. It’s THEIR country.” Full stop.
Why is it that changing “If it’s legal in Brazil then it is ok for them to do that. It’s THEIR country” to “If it’s legal in Germany then it is ok for them to do that. It’s THEIR country.”
I changed one, just one, word in your argument, Heydrich. How is that way off and not in the ballpark? Because you say so?
Thrill me with your acumen.
.
Again, you have no idea what you’re reading. Your attempt at making an equivalent argument was nowhere near what is being discussed.
You’re getting tangled up by your reading comprehension problem.
The logical and moral analogy is correct and in other posts you have admitted as much.
Not the same person, dumbass
The logic is identical – the bruden of proof to demonstrate otherwise is on you.
Your argument is it is THEIR country.
But even that you get wrong – it is the Brazillians country. It is NOT de Moreas and Lulu’s country.
John,
You’re arguing semantics. You don’t know Brazilian law and neither do I. All I do know is that they are basing their decisions on their law. Unless you can show their law does not allow what you claim it does not let then do then you’re not just as ignorant as I am.
“You’re arguing semantics.”
Nope – that word does not mean what you think it means.
“You don’t know Brazilian law and neither do I.”
And yet you repeatedly have claimed that you DO know Brazilian law. Make up your mind.
” All I do know is that they are basing their decisions on their law.”
If you do not know brazillian law you can not know that.
Logic eludes you.
” Unless you can show their law does not allow what you claim it does not let then do then you’re not just as ignorant as I am.”
What and absurd argument.
What has been happening with the ascension of de Moreas to the supreme court has not happened before in Brazil.
I know this is hard for those of you on the left to understand but the rule with government is what has never been done before is probably unconstitutional.
“ It was legal to kill Jews in Germany back in the 30s and 40s. Was that okay, too? That’s your “logic,” isn’t it?”
Svelaz that is your logic. All one has to do is change the names and your guilt is obvious. We have gone through this before, but you run away.
When the Ottoman Empire broke up, portions of the Middle East were divided into Mandates. Some of the major countries of the time each got a piece of land, which, under specific laws, was to be divided up to become nation-states. That is how many of the countries were created and the boundaries settled. Therefore, each country created worked under the same international rules.
What happened to the British Mandate?
Time for you to respond, but you don’t. You can’t. You are too stupid to do so.
And yet it is not.
Though I would further note that is a really stupid argument.
Substitute slavery for fining citizens for excercising free speech.
NOW do you think it would be OK for de Moreas to enslave Brazillians because HE says it is legal in brazil ?
The brazillian constitution and law actually bars this nonsense. But that is meaningless if the president and the supreme court corruptly say otherwise.
….”Anything critical of Israel is labeled anti-Semitic. But…..free speech. Elon, the free speech absolutist has no problem granting the Israeli government’s requests to censor Palestinian account holders “
You are a disgrace to humanity. No government agency not X is censoring Palestinian account holder except for those engaging in terrorism. Prove your words. You can’t, but this is not new. When you are questioned you cannot answer. You are dumb and a liar. Here is what occurred our last discussion.
—
@ George/Svelaz: Time to put up or shut up. Let us see who the dope is.
When the Ottoman Empire broke up, portions of the Middle East were divided into Mandates. Some of the major countries of the time each got a piece of land, which, under specific laws, was to be divided up to become nation-states. That is how many of the countries were created and the boundaries settled. Therefore, each country created worked under the same international rules.
What happened to the British Mandate?You can now demonstrate whether you have knowledge or not. I have already shared a lot of knowledge here and before. If you don’t respond, you define who and what you are.
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/08/29/the-wild-ride-pennsylvania-democrat-declares-that-she-is-outraged-devastated-in-conflicting-letters-on-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-2440145
S. Meyer, huh? As is usual, you are not making any sense. What are you babbling about? I suggest you invest in a good grammar app to address your coherence problem.
Svelaz attempting to act more stupid doesn’t work. My statements are clear. In both cases you are requested to show proof of your contentions and your knowledge. You have none and are a liar.
Let’s get back to our earlier discussion that you ran away from.
“What happened to the British Mandate?You can now demonstrate whether you have knowledge or not. I have already shared a lot of knowledge here and before. If you don’t respond, you define who and what you are.”
You know nothing of the area. If you know nothing your comments suggest a brain dead person.
“Svelaz attempting to act more stupid doesn’t work.”
He’s not pretending
You claimed that X was illegitimately censoring palestinian content.
Yet you provided no evidence that was the case.
Do you have evidence that Palestinians are being censored by Israel ?
Everything I am aware of suggest the only problem with information from Gaza is that Hamas censors the press and therefore nothing from Gaza is trustworthy. We have no idea what the actual casualties are as an example.
I would prefer if neither Brazilian or palestinians were censored at all. If you want me to condemn Israel for censorship – provide some evidence that is occurring and I will do so.
I would note Glenn Greenwald is on top of BOTH the situation in Israel and in Brazil and it more critical of Israel than I think is appropriate.
But I like Glenn and he does provide a view of Israel that is less clouded by the generally pro Israel tilt of the media.
Attacks on Israel are not antisemitism. And technically Palestinians are Semites – like Jews.
At the same time that does not mean that attacks on Israel are correct. But we must allow speech that is bad – including anti-semetic speech.
It is also going to be difficult to get the sympathy of many regarding Palestine After all the US invaded two countries that at worst harboured terrorists that attacked us, and killed at the very least 200K civilians after 9/11 and likely closer to 2M.
If you do not want a war – do not commit acts of terrorism.
If on Oct 8 you thought that Israel was going to stop at anything less than the complete anhiliation of Hamas – you are sadly mistaken.
Nations do not survive long if they allow thousands of citizens to be killed by acts of terror.
While Netenyahu is under alot of pressure – from Israeli’s and the world to get a hostage deal.
It is highly =unlikely There will be a permanent cease fire before Hamas is eliminated
Nor am I greatly concerned about what is happening in Gaza – because the Israeli’s are doing better under worse conditions than US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can not condemn Israel for falling short of the mayhem the US inflicted on Afghanistan and Iraq.
While we did lots of stupid things in Afghanistan and Iraq – the invasion of Afghanistan was not only justified by required.
We were obligated to go in, wipe out the Taliban and Al Queda and leave.
What we did wrong was to NOT do that.
There is no longer any common ground between the Left and the Right in the West.
The Left has no program for national unity, nor do they want one. Their policies in blue states and at the border are driving a profound geographic shift that is amplifying hostility. Their cultural demands are absolute poison to traditionalists.
The radicalization of the Left is stretching the political spectrum to the breaking point and engendering a growing reaction from the right that politics cannot negotiate.
I cannot see how this ends without conflict if swing voters don’t send the Left a harsh message and stop this radicalization trend. So far that has not happened.
Diogenes,
Well said.
Say Trump wins in November. Will our leftist friends accept it? Or will they deny the election results, claim it was stolen, and then wage some kind of fight to over turn the results? They have already declared the Constitution is a threat to democracy.
That’s a good question, Upstate. IMHO, If it’s a big win for the Right, the adults in the Democrat Party might get some leverage. Anything less is an invitation to anarchy, just as you describe.
Diogenes, I agree with you, but I must add that we should remember that the adults in the Democrat Party had control in the middle of the last century. The left was buried in the Democrat movement, and some as anarchists in the libertarian movement with a scattering elsewhere. They looked at the long term and how they could destroy institutions by following the law for their purposes while fracturing community bonds. They were for free speech because this gave them a way to tear at society. They were against America’s exertion of strength, not for America’s benefit, but rather to tear away American cultural values. They entered academia, where they could indoctrinate the naive. Some of the names from that time are the same today, though they are not in the limelight.
Should they lose, the dark left will not disappear; they hibernate and again attempt to destroy American cultural values.
There are a few anarcho capitalists among libertaraisn. Do NOT confuse AC with Anarchy – it is NOT.
We have a working anarchoi capitalist system in the world – one of the most fundimental – and that is the system of world government.
There is no actual world govenrment, Nations negotiate with each other. They abide by rules – sometimes, and others they do not.
They abide by rules voluntarily – because of the advantages they get and the disadvantages if they do not.
No country is going to jail another for cheating on trade.
you can like this or dislike it – but it is functional anarcho capitalism,.
It is NOT anarchy. They are not the same thing.
Actual anarchists tend to be from the left. Such as Antifa.
John, I do not confuse anarchy with libertarianism, though some libertarians push their ideology to the point of anarchy. There are too many opinions about libertarian positions, so adjectives describe a person’s nature more precisely, but such terms are not helpful on a general blog.
I like Milton Friedman’s answer to the question of his personal ideology. He said he had none but, if pushed, would call himself a libertarian or a classical liberal. I agree with the philosophical position that I adopted long ago.
Anarchy, an inherently unstable state, is often exploited by ‘Marxist Revolutionaries’ to further their agendas. We witnessed their advocacy for free speech in the 1960s, which was a ploy to sow discord. Today, having amassed significant power, they resort to censorship, a clear sign of their totalitarian aspirations.
Globalism and elitism, when combined, can manipulate and control governments. This alliance often leads to tyranny, a stark warning we must heed.
I am sure that in a planet with 8B people there is atleast on libertarian thatr has pushed things to anarchy. I have not met them yet.
And I would bet I know far more libertarians than you
However it is a common argument that libertariansism is anarchy adjacent – it is not. While like conservatism libertarianism has many shades – none of that go to anarchy. The most critical disti between libertarians and anarcho-capitalists is that libertarians accept the need for a state – government. AnCaps do not. And still AnarchoCapitalism is STILL not anarchy.
AnarchoCapitalism is a fairly sophisticated ideology – one that has worked for nations relating to each other. That has no government
and still has the means to deal with crime and contracts and disputes. it is sitll not anrachy.
And AC is beyond the far edge of Libertarianism.
regardless all you are doing is repeating a stupid claim about libertairism that does not hold up.
I recently watched a short youtub video on libertarianism and critiques – it was just a long collection of straw men.
“I am sure that in a planet with 8B people there is atleast on libertarian thatr has pushed things to anarchy. “
John, I am sure that on the planet, there are no libertarians who are anarchists and no anarchists who are libertarians. We don’t know how many anarchists turned into libertarians or how many libertarians turned into anarchists. Still, we know that anarchy can be used to cause revolution.
“And I would bet I know far more libertarians than you”
That is based on the definition and you are using a logical fallacy. Ideology is fluid. Your sex is fixed at birth; your ideology is not.
I don’t think you walk around checking the criteria of each person you meet to determine if they are libertarians by your definition. Some you think are your type of libertarian could be Randians and others, communists.
“regardless all you are doing is repeating a stupid claim about libertairism that does not hold up.”
What specific claim did I repeat? I urge you to read my words carefully and engage with the nuances of our debate.
I think the democratic party is in very deep trouble.
The Tea Party in effect took over the GOP over the past decade +.
They did so by saying – our way or the highway. If Republicans want to win elections – they must do so with TP candidates.
Trump co=opted the TP into the MAGA movement. Not Trump and MAGA own the Republican party.
While that does not mean there are no non-MAGA republicans – there plenty. But they have come to terms with MAGA and MAGA control of the party.
Democrats are facing the same fight with progressives.
But there is a fundiemtnal difference. MAGA works as a means of governing. It is less than perfect. but it is still net positive.
Progressivism does not work. Democrats have a choice between giving power to people who will fail badly.
As enduring the stupid idiocy of the far left or spliting the party and losing .
“ MAGA works as a means of governing”
No. MAGA works as a means of RULING. that’s where project 2025 comes in. They don’t want to govern. They want to rule.
Svelaz, Project 2025 has nothing to do with the Trump/ Republican platform. It is a ploy made by stupid people to be noticed, as it gives them an answer that is related but different. Instead of proving yourself stupid, why not answer the prior question on the British Mandate? You talked so much about the subject, but you don’t know what the Mandate is or how it works.
“When the Ottoman Empire broke up, portions of the Middle East were divided into Mandates. Some of the major countries of the time each got a piece of land, which, under specific laws, was to be divided up to become nation-states. That is how many of the countries were created and the boundaries settled. Therefore, each country created worked under the same international rules.
What happened to the British Mandate?
You can’t answer, proving yourself stupid, just like you are doing with your mention of Project 2025
Project 2025 is a 925 page project of opver a thousand people from the heritage center that has been written and rewritten over decades.
While your characterization of it is inaccurate – frankly it atleast partly does not reflect the heritage center acurately.
Regardless, while some parts of it reflect MAGA – possibly large parts, MAGA is at its core conservative and Heritage is also conservative.
But you would not claim that antifa accurately reflects Harris Would you ? I will critize democrats for being far too friendly to antifa,
But I am not pretending they are the same.
I would further note that with very few exceptions – there is too much neocon stuff in P2025 as an example – P2025 is NOT a recipe for Ruling – it is mostly a recipe for limited government.
Limited government is the expectation that people are best left to themselves in all but a few things.
Heritage is not the perfect advocate for limited govenrment – but they are a good one.
Svelaz – while I have no interest in defending all of P2025, if it has your panties in a bunch – tell us what it is about it that bothers you.
Then we can actually try to determine whether that is a part of the MAGA platform as well as whether it is a good idea.
As an example parts of P2025 are heavily neocon. MAGA is ANTI-NEOCON which is why Trump has lost many neocons – like the Chenney’s to the democrats.
But significant parts of P2025 are about limited govenrment – while some of those are part of Trump’s platform all are not.
Regardless, I likely would suppoort ALL or most P2025 limit government recommendations.
But MAGA only includes some.
Regardless instead of trying to use P2025 like the N word – lets directly address what you find offensive.
Or don’t you actually know anything about P2025 – except that in your bubble people do not like it.
MAGA, Tea Party, etc., are not just calls for freedom, but they are rooted in enduring principles of less government, lower taxes, and a steadfast adherence to the Constitution. These principles will always guide us, regardless of who leads.
While the MAGA movement is not solely dependent on Trump, his leadership is currently pivotal. The movement’s future could be significantly influenced by the outcome of the upcoming election, potentially facing destruction if Trump does not emerge victorious.
SM – MAGA is just the current incarnation of the Tea Party.
It is not disappearing regardless of this election.
I would argue that it will likely become STRONGER should Harris win.
Nothing makes a movement stronger than the failures of its enemies.
Post Trump there will be a likely bitter political battle over the leadership of MAGA.
But that is independent of the surviving and thriving of MAGA.
These are MY observations and I am libertarian – Not MAGA.
I would like to see MAGA change in a variety of ways that I do not expect anytime soon.
MAGA is an improvement over NEOcons.
It is an improvement over establishment republicans (Romney types).
It is an improvement over social conservatives (evangelicals).
But it is not perfect.
However it is not dying anytime soon – regardless of this election.
For i would venture atleast a decade it is the future of the GOP.
It is going to be important in the future because on net it grows the GOP at the expense of democrats.
And that is not changing soon.
” I am libertarian – Not MAGA.”
Milton Friedman called himself a classical liberal or a libertarian. Was he not a libertarian?
“Post Trump there will be a likely bitter political battle over the leadership of MAGA.”
John, Post-Trump, we can expect a familiar battle for leadership, reminiscent of the pre-Trump era.
Trump served as a conduit for well-established ideas, such as liberty and smaller government. While most Trump supporters align with his vision, there will always be room for nuanced disagreements, a hallmark of a robust political system.
Trump created a huge tent.
“I would like to see MAGA change in a variety of ways that I do not expect anytime soon.”
John, I would also like to see MAGA change in various ways, but I do not expect such change anytime soon.
What change are you looking for? Inform us of the five most significant items for the President and how his policies significantly differ. Understand that a President is not free to do what he wants since he has to rely on Congress and the law.
“I think the democratic party is in very deep trouble.”
Yes, John, and so was the Republican Party before Trump, but political parties can always said to be in trouble. Why? Because they need to satisfy the people. The question is, are the people watching? No. That is the problem. If they were watching today, there would almost be no Democrat Party, as their lack of attention allows the party to operate without accountability. That is why the Democrats on this blog use character assassination and lies. They are unable to use policy in their discussions.
Any Trump victory will result in Violence.
Classes have started again and we are already seeing the likelyhood of restarting proHamas violence.
Does anyone expect that Trump getting elected will not drive these same people far more apoplectic ?
BTW RCP says that 75% of criminal cases in NY involve illegal immigrants.
So much for the nonsense that crime is down.
The Biden administration is just cooking the books as they have been doing in numerous other areas.
UpState,
I have said this in earlier comments, I do not expect the Dems to accept electoral loss in November. They will start with law fare, i.e., in every swing state they lost they will challenge the result, demand recounts, etc, etc. If that fails, on Jan. 6 they will seek to not certify the election results, claiming the 14th Amendment as their justification. If that fails (and it will fail if the reps keep th house and win the Senate), we will see riots on Jan. 20. Peaceful riots of course unlike the Jan 6 2021 insurrectionists (being sarcastic). When Biden was still running, I thought that he may decide to stay in power if he would lose, using the riots as an excuse to declare a state of emergency, and declare the elections unlawful, but that would be hard to do now that he is no longer a candidate. If he would simply declare Harris the winner, we’ll be on the brink of a civil war. But now that he has been pushed aside, he may not do that and transfer power to DJT as sort of revenge to his own party. Not sure here. But what I am sure of are the relentless and nation-wide riots that will erupt on Jan. 20 by Antifa and other Democrat brown shirts.
DoubleDutch writes, “But now that he has been pushed aside, he may not do that and transfer power to DJT as sort of revenge to his own party.”
Totally agree. She was Biden’s revenge on the East Coast establishment that had abandoned him. If she loses, the establishment gets booted by Republicans. If she wins, she boots her biggest backstabbers over the last four years–that same establishment.
Either way, the East Coast establishment gets hammered. Good riddance.
DoubleDutch,
From what we have seen there is a small but growing group of leftists who truly do believe democracy is under threat. We have seen it growing more and more e.g. Reich’s column, attacks on the Constitution etc.
Your theory on Biden and the transfer of power is interesting.
Upstate, will Trump? He’s already indicated he won’t accept it. If he ends up with the same lack of proof of voter fraud will YOU accept the results if Harris wins?
There is proof of voter fraud and it actually happens all the time. The big news outlets and TV news won’t cover it, so you falsely assume it’s not happening. Here’s a recent case – https://nypost.com/2023/12/19/metro/queens-man-indicted-for-voter-fraud-after-forging-absentee-ballots-last-summer-in-democratic-primary/
What is notable is that it is caught often and it is still rare.
False, it is caught rarely and there are still myriads of examples.
Rassmussen has been polling people on their behavior in elections since 2020.
Consistently about 38% of people polled admit to atleast one act that is illegal during the last election.
A full 30% admit to multiple illegal acts.
And Raskin has indicated he will not accept the results if Trump wins.
Regardless, there is no “lack of proof” standard.
Trust in elections is something Government MUST deliver.
Keep failing and you will learn the meaning of the text in the declaration of independence about the right of the people to alter or abolish government that has not secured their trust.
“He’s already indicated he won’t accept it.”
False he has repeatedly said he will accept the results of a free and fair election.
Follow the law and we will all accept the results.
But you can not. you are like de Moreas in Brazil – making it up as you go along.
LOL. Hate to break it to you, but right wing extremists are already changing their positions on the border. As Harris is indicating she’s going to be tough on the border, right wing extremists are starting to say she’s overlooking the global demographic crash of the population of working age adults and that we need immigrants. Leave it to Trumptards to find any angle on anything to whine about.
Trumptards? Right wing “extreme it’s”? You are reduced to name-calling like a grade schooler. Broad statements like this should be backed with evidence.
Nope, Anonymous. Nice try at sophistry, though.
She will do what every leftwing party in the West is doing. Flood the zone and blame it on somebody else.
What a lying sack of garbage you are. Show me ONE conservative that has said we need more immigration.
Farmers, they WANT more immigration. They need immigrants to pick their crops and work at meat packing plants. They’ve always called for more immigrants , legal ones.
But it seems the “great replacement theorists” are panicking and calling for even reduced legal immigration.
Idiot
No farmers do not want more immigration – your in the wrong century.
Since the 80’s farming -0 despite the great difficulty in doing so has become highly automated.
BTW the same is true of meat packing.
The busineses that hire large numbers of illegals also get targeted by the government and get the Crap fined out of them.
That is an unworkable business model. Therefore those businesses have adapted – they have automated.
In the 80’s I helpd design a building for a massive hog dog making machine. Meat went in the front and of the building and hotdogs out the back. There were only a small number of people operating the machine. But there was a great deal of effort put into making sure that there were truckloads of meet ready at the front and empty trucks for hotdogs at the back. If the machine had to be stopped for any reason – it had to be cleaned from end to end and that took days.
Regardless the point is that you are in the wrong century.
While I will guarantee you that if there are 10M illegal immigrants in the country SOMEONE will find work for them – that is how the law of supply and demand works. There is no industry that requires them.
While there is a demographic issue – even a global one, The issue is different from country to country.
In the US we need higher birth rates or 2M immigrants every year.
To the extent that a tiny few on the right grasp that – they still want LEGAL immigrants – generally NOT fromt he countries illegal immigrants are coming from.
The right has TWO immigration issues. First immigration (legal and illegal) is far too large.
Adn the 2nd is it is from the wrong countries.
The US is NOT going to get 1M additional Caucasian immigrants. The “right” wants legal immigrants from Asia.
The left wants mass immigration from central and south america.
Most of the right wants all immigration capped at about 1M/yr – that is too few.
A fe want almost zero immigrants.
A smaller group wants the correct 2M.yr.
None of this has changed recently.
Only lunatics want the nonsense under Biden.
Only lunatics beleive Harris will act differently from Biden.
“The Left has no program for national unity”
Oh, but they do. Their plan is to intimidate and subjugate all dissenting voices, no matter the magnitude or the justification for that dissent, over and over and over, until anyone who is not privileged to be a member of their cartel is too cowed and exhausted to speak up. At that time they will proclaim that they have won the hearts and minds of the entire population, and achieved true unity. That their achievement only comes by means of virtually bludgeoning all opposition into submission and silence will not give them the slightest pause. I sincerely hope that any confidence they have in that ambition is deluded, because if it does come to pass, restoring Liberty will no longer be possible without bloodshed, if it is possible at all.
Ragnar D,
“At that time they will proclaim that they have won the hearts and minds of the entire population, and achieved true unity.”
I have noticed in their rhetoric they use the words “most,” “many,” “the majority,” when describing their objections to things like the Constitution, the SC, the electoral college. But they dont have the hearts and minds of anyone but themselves and they are far from a majority.
I do not think their ambitions are deluded based off some of the good professor’s more recent columns and articles about people calling for re-writing the Constitution, calling for censorship and other very anti-American rhetoric.
It seems Brazil is having the same issues the EU has with social media platforms that violate the law or are seen as interfering with their respective electoral systems by allowing or preferring certain rhetoric, or false narratives and even inciting violence. These countries have a right to investigate and determine if the claims are true. That’s not censorship. There are a lot of claims and counter claims being made by X and the Brazilian justice.
It seems Brazil is X’s biggest revenue source since it is losing advertisers and it’s lucrative revenue. Elon told them to f-ck off. So now he’s having to deal with this issue. He’s made things worse for himself apparently.
Brazilian judges are following Brazilian law. This is not new. Tulrley doesn’t mention that Brazil has shut down social media platforms before. WhatsApp was shut down in 2015 and 2016 over its refusal to provide police requests for user data. In 2022 a Brazilian judge threatened Telegram with shutdown for not providing profiles of particular users to police. They asked for the same thing as they asked Elon, that they provide a local representative. Telegram complied and the situation was resolved. It’s THEIR rules. If X or other social media platforms wish to conduct business in their country they must abide by their rules.
Other countries have banned twitter/X for facilitating dissent or promoting anti-government conduct. I bet Israel monitors X and other social media sites to censor pro-Palestinian views or use it to punish those who speak against Israel.
“Brazilian judges are following Brazilian law.”
Chinese judges are following Chinese law.
Iranian judges are following Iranian law.
Russian judges . . .
What is the purpose of the mindless incantation: “follow the law”? — To make you passively accept tyranny. (See also the Covid lockdowns and shutdowns.)
He is a spastic idiot who cant help repeating himself.
Do you actually not realize that pathologically repeating the term ‘spastic idiot’ like you’re Linda Blair’s spinning head in the Exorcist makes this post in particular wildly hypocritical and stupid?
If you get him going he’ll tell you he’s a highly decorated Navy war veteran, owns ten businesses, has four homes and that he has your IP address and knows where you live… all while thinking he doesn’t sound utterly pathetic.
+100
Another spastic idiot^^^
“If you get him going he’ll tell you he’s a highly decorated Navy war veteran”
Spastic idiot confusing me with Waters? And Darren?
Spastic Idiots ^^^^
It’s THEIR laws. Why is Turley so bent out of shape about another country’s laws being violated by a U.S. citizen because he’s supposedly too rich to be bothered by sovereign rights.
We had politicians calling to ban tik tok because they didn’t like the level of influence it had on our society and because it was Chinese owned. We subjected tik tok to OUR laws. Why is that so hard to grasp?
+100
George, were you defending South Africa’s laws? Were you defending the East German laws? Iran’s laws? Saudi Arabia’s laws? What a tool.
Has anyone else noticed that Dennis, Gigi and Sam always get ONE “like”? Only a loser will like their own comment…loser.
Hullbobby, you’re not paying attention. Nobody’s is saying their laws are right, moral, just, or better than ours. None. What I am saying is that other nations have their OWN laws. That’s it. We have our own and we expect others who which to do business here to adhere to OUR laws and expect it. Right?
Do you concede that other nations have their own laws and have sovereign right to impose them within their borders? That’s not an admission that you support them or agree with them like you insinuate that I do because I am just pointing out a very basic fact that seems to escape those posting here.
You seem bothered by the “likes”, enough to gripe about them for some reason. That’s just weird.
“What I am saying is that other nations have their OWN laws.”—Svelaz-George
Fvcking spastic idiot has indeed said this like 40 times in the last 2 weeks.
Water is wet—Svelaz the spastic
The sky is blue—Svelaz the spastic
Fire is hot—Svelaz the spastic
Gravity is real—Svelaz the spastic
Other nations have their own laws—Svelaz the spastic
Clearly, there is no such thing as a natural law—Svelaz the spastic
I never said there is no such thing as natural laws—Svelaz the spastic, the very next day
Anonynous, why are you obsessed about what I’m saying. You’re not paying attention are you? The only reason I keep repeating myself is because others like you are too dumb to figure it out. So repeating and constantly reminding them that Brazil is NOT a U.S. state or part of the U.S. judicial system. They seem to keep being confused about that very basic issue.
Seriously, that svelaz sure has you all wound up around his/her finger. I’ve got to find out what he/she did to cause you to be this enamoured with this svelaz individual.
Not gonna work gaslighter. Low IQ. Pathetic bwahahahahaha
You keep repeating yourself because you have no point otherwise. You create the gaslight that others dont ALREADY KNOW the spastic 3rd grade idea that they have their own laws. Then you respond to it as if thats the issue.
Does your low IQ gaslighting work on your Grindr dates???
So George I guess we should have just ignored South Africa and Apartheid since it was their laws and even if wrong they still have sovereignty??? I guess we should just have ignored the Nazi laws that were put in place in the 1980s??? I guess Sam Adams and the boys should have just accepted England’s laws???
George, trying to appease a dictator because they are leftists isn’t the bug win you think it is.
Hullbobby, Your poor attempt at an equivalent comparison fails to mention one important fact.
Apartheid has nothing to do with following their laws if you were to choose to do business with them at the time. An American business would HAVE HAD to follow South African laws in order to operate IN South Africa. Which is still the point.
Saying they have their own laws does NOT mean you support them or agree with them. BUT…..if you WANT to do business IN those countries you HAVE to follow THEIR laws. That’s the most basic concept you are not able to grasp.
If a foreign businessman wanted to operate IN the United States they would HAVE TO follow U.S. law. Even when we still had Jim Crow laws and slavery was legal. Do you get it now?
So would you be OK with the US government fining people $9,000 day if they use TikTok via a VPN after it was banned here? Do you not understand the term “cruel and unusual punishment”? (PS I am opposed to TikTok being banned here.)
“ So would you be OK with the US government fining people $9,000 day if they use TikTok via a VPN after it was banned here? ”
That would be unconstitutional here. So yes I would be opposed to it. Because I live here.
“ Do you not understand the term “cruel and unusual punishment”?
Of course, because OUR constitution prohibits it. Does the Brazilian constitution prohibit it?
So you are opposed to tik tok being banned here. Why aren’t you calling out the republicans who are calling for censorship of tik tok here? Why isn’t Turley criticizing republicans for supporting the censorship of tik tok?
They want tik tok to follow OUR laws. So why are you or Turley griping about Brazil insisting X follow THEIR laws?
According the Center for Disease Control, 480,000 people died of COVID in 2021. In a typical year, 19,000 die of the flu. Now I realize the average math competency of the average Trumptard is best described as “special ed,” but it’s not hard to understand why there would be lockdowns of a novel virus which is 25 times more deadly than the flu. Only a moron would not understand this and call lockdowns “tyranny.”
+100
Sweden had no lockdowns and had one of the lowest Covid mortality rates in Europe. No students died even though primary and middle schools were not ever shut down and no masks were required.
Lockdowns do not stop the spread of the virus and have devastating health, economic, educational and social consequences.
This virus had a significant effect on the very old and the very sick. For others it was generally not deadly. The response to it, especially in blue states, was a travesty and contrary to all pre-existing public health guidance.
Don’t bore the spastic idiots with facts, Daniel
In support of your statement. The Spanish Flu of 1918-1920 was deadlier.
There were 670,000 American deaths and the population of the US in 1920 was 106 million. Most recent counts of Covid 19 deaths in the US are 1,200,000 with a 2020 population of 331,000,000. Higher per capital death rate with Spanish flu. No lockdowns.
GEB,
Well said and thank you for bringing facts.
I guess that the US may have suffered disproportionately to some other nations because:
We have high nursing home populations, and in NY, some other blue states injected Covid into the nursing homes.
Many elderly people are kept alive with advanced medical procedures, which can make them more susceptible to the virus, leading to a highly vulnerable population.
NYC didn’t bother to sanitize the subway systems.
Our policies kept people indoors and clustered together.
Many more possibilities need to be considered.
The lockdowns were in 2020, ya spastic idiot
None of that justifies punishing citizens, which is what this piece is about: digital version of the Berlin Wall.
A social media company being banned by a country should be taken as a mark of excellence.
If I had written a book on the threat to Free Speech in America, and wanted to promote it, I would be attending a venue in Washington DC that is bringing together several notable and quotables on the subject. Happily, such an event is occurring on Sept 29, Sunday, Twelve Noon, with speakers such as Matti Taibbi, Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, and others. I hope Professor Turley attends and perhaps some of the commenters of this blog can as well. Alas, I did not write such a book, but I may attend anyways if for nothing else, to straighten out Bret Weinstein on his erroneous comments on HIV
Come to My Speech in Defense of the First Amendment in Washington on Sunday, September 29th: “Rescue the Republic”
….I feel so strongly about the First Amendment, and have such a unique experience as an American who discovered its transformative power living abroad, that I feel obligated to become a speaker in its defense.
https://www.racket.news/p/come-to-my-speech-in-defense-of-the
More info on the above event
Rescue the Republic: Join the Resistance will kick off at 12pm on Sunday, September 29th.
The stage will be located northeast of the WWII Memorial (east of 17th Street) and open viewing will extend all the way to the Washington Monument. The program will consist of a mix of musical artists, comedians and thought leaders who alternate in a fast-paced program.
https://jointheresistance.org/
“The conflict began with demands to censor supporters of the conservative former president Jair Bolsonaro. ”
To those leftists on this blog, do you want your government to stop you from using this blog? Democratic AG from Minnesota says yes. What if it pertained to a blog discussing Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr., where Joe Biden deemed one of them offensive and stopped one from being heard?
S. Meyer,
Of course they do.
When they say or by their actions that they are fascists, believe them.
You don’t think that ever character you, et., al., type in here or anywhere else is not captured, examined, and filed away in your own alpha-numeric encoded dossier just awaiting the day you become enough of a problem to be dealt with now do you?
What is your point? Or, are you a mouse?
Good Morning Brazil 🇧🇷
Say Hello to:
Mastodon
Bluesky
Threads
CounterSocial
Reddit
Tumblr
Discord
Post News
Substack
Cohost
Hive Social
LinkedIn
Spill
Blog
Diaspora
Instagram
Plurk
T2
TikTok
Clubhouse
Facebook
Gab
Pinterest
Aether
… (Alternatives to 𝕏|Twitter)
There is never a Power Vacuum as-long-as there be Speech.
You forgot to mention your favorite app:
Grindr
If you really want to know what is behind all of this……
Mike Benz: The Deep State’s Step-by-Step Plan to End Free Speech
https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-mike-benz-2
* all nations in Latin America are 3rd worlds. The USA is now 3rd world . Conclusion is the western hemisphere is 3rd world. Perhaps readers might try to take measures from sliding ever downward.
Brazil isn’t on my radar.
Brazil is a mess right now from my point of view. Their judiciary has changed significantly starting with Lulu’s first round in the presidency. And yes each country has its own judicial system. However it does not mean we cannot look at another system and comment upon its workings and weaknesses. And learn lessons from it.
My own interpretation of Brazil right now is that we are seeing what an unrestrained judiciary can do. It would almost appear as this one judge is giving orders and judgments and contrary to Brazilian law without necessarily having a case presented and a trial. Which in most situations would be required. I am not an expert on the Napoleanic code which is still used in much of Europe but I’m not sure that Brazil’s legal system operates under that type of code either. It would also seem that much of Brazil was somewhat surprised by this turn of events with X. Other sources reveal that X was supported quite heavily in Brazil because it was felt to be more objective and truthful than many official mouthpieces and the left wing controlled media. Other sources than JT.
Also Lulu’s previous administrations were quite ripe with corruption and disdain for the law. And the most recent election was so close as to be almost 51/49
Also LULU is left wing and almost immediately reinstituted Brazil talking with Russia and China and other miscreants in the authoritarian world. Difficult times may be ahead for Brazil.
Luckily Argentina is going in the opposite direction for now.
I asked a psychology professor about one of the psych tests used by industry. Some of the questions were really bizarre. “How can the test taker not laugh at some of these questions?”
He said, “These questions won’t seem bizarre to a crazy person.”
Those who think that the government gets to decide what information an adult consumer can or cannot see or that censorship on this level have a screw loose.
This is a preview of what is to come for this nation if some despots get their way and if citizens don’t speak up.
Should say…censorship on this level is good…
E.M.
Looking at what the Democrats stand for now, when just 10 years ago they themselves would of said, “Thats crazy!” Yet they are the lunatics of today.
Which political party has been on a book banning binge in the United States? I’m pretty sure that would be MAGA republicans.
You would be wrong, but thats not surprising for a libturd.
Do some fact checking. Florida has banned books, Idaho has banned books, Kansas has banned books. Idaho will make teachers and librarians criminals if parents don’t approve of a book.
Name calling doesn’t change facts. Your belief in falsehoods does not make them true.
Here is just one link for you to check up on.
https://www.pnj.com/story/news/education/2023/09/22/florida-leads-nation-in-book-bans-full-list-of-banned-books/70934406007/
That is assuming you know how to do a search.
Lying again doesnt change facts or improve your credibility.
Those books are not banned. Do some time in a dictionary, ya spastic idiot.
A book is not banned if not allowed in a school libraries but still available for purchase in bookstores and on-line.
So some books ARE banned at school libraries. Therefore there ARE book bans.
Wrong. Call them what they are, ya spastic idiot. School libraries have been regulated since the beginning.
All libraries have been regulated since the beginning. School libraries are still public libraries.
“School libraries are still public libraries.”
LMAO yea, rrrrrrr..ok.
(you are a) spastic idiot.
“All libraries have been regulated since the beginning”
Really??? What regulation(s) is that? I’d like to read it.
Spastic idiot just making shit up now???
The only book being disparaged is called Gender Queer and no, I so not want my 6-year-old grandchild reading about dildos and strap ons.
Let me guess…, you want to show them those things personally in ‘private’?
When did you stop cornholing your nephew?
Look at the spastic idiot, who disparages showing these “things” in private, but wants them in the school library.
Reallly low IQ on that one.
Nice deflection. The only books that are attempting to be banned is graphically pornographic books in elementary And middle schools. If you know of other books being banned, please post the link otherwise you’re just talking out of your ass
Easy Google search. Even quicker with AI. Don’t be so lazy. Better yet, don’t be such a b hole.
Groomer ^^^^^
“European censors are arresting CEOs like Pavel Durov”
Did JT miss the “news” about Pavel and accusations of child abuse.
French prosecutors told CNN they have requested more information from Switzerland over allegations that Telegram founder Pavel Durov conducted “acts of violence” against one of his children.
Lmao omg he spanked his child.
Spastic.
Worm has long turned on TWIX and bogus news sources like the one Turley works for. Let the defamation suits roll. Their ballroom days are over, baby.
Lawn boi the booger eating troll is making his rounds this morning. Such a compelling argument.
Let the cooking sherry spill. Have another sip, drunktard.
Yeah, yeah….
We got it long ago…, you love drinking cooking sherry and eating boogers so much you have to project your passion on to others. Often with extreme paranoia and no skill whatsoever at not getting triggered.
That’s how mondo dumb asses roll, it seems.
Lawn boi the booger eating drunktard says what?
Aha…, just what I thought. Don’t hold out on us. What’s your favorite cooking sherry to drink. And more importantly, do you like to store it above the stove so it’s all hot and tasty?
Drinks cooking sherry and wants my recommendation^^^^
Coming to America soon if we do not disinfect our nation of neo-marxists.
think this can’t happen in the USA…if Fascist Democrat win?
Globalist are backed by China and people who HATE the WEST
Time for the RIGHT to jail criminal leftist…including Democrats….by the 1000’s. WE KNOW THEIR CRIMES
Also END centralized power….in the USA END all Federal Aid to cities, states, non-profits and colleges
let democrats fund their own failures! 5% tax on the GROSS of all wall street trades and moving money offshore….DEFUND DEMOCRATS!
I do get the sense that many true Americans are coming to the conclusion that there is only one way to deal with progressive jihadis who will go to any lengths to further and protect their cult.
“The Nazis wanted Germans to support the Nazi dictatorship and believe in Nazi ideas. To accomplish this goal, they tried to control forms of communication through censorship and propaganda. This included control of newspapers, magazines, books, art, theater, music, movies, and radio.”, now X.
I wonder if de Moraes has a short mustache and combs his hair forward?
There are myriads of questions here. One is how One Justice in Brazil has this type of power.
This is a single justice on the supreme court – not the president, and not the legislature that is making laws, and then demanding and getting their enforcement.
That is not typically how a judiciary works.
Many of those bveing censored are the elected legislators in Brazil, or journalists.
There is also a huge problem because this censorship started BEFORE the very close election in which Lulu defeated Bolsanaro.
As in the US this was goverment interferance in elections. Worse this interferance was ASSISTED by the Biden Administration.
So we have the US Govenrment under Biden engaged in censorship pof a foreign country in violation of the US constitiution.
John…why do you have a LGTBTIQ flag? Your brain washing isn’t complete?
any questions on why the Whitehouse is sending people to the various trials of Trump?
It is Centralized power….where it happens….it DESTROYS
How was this cultivated by Biden? I’m aware of his jawboning in the United States relative to the media but how did he influence the decision on X? Just collecting evidence.
“ That is not typically how a judiciary works.”
It’s odd how many don’t understand the fact that different countries operate by different rules. Their judiciary system is not going to operate the same way our does, but that doesn’t stop us from judging their systems as if they were run like ours.
Brazil is not Europe, and it’s certainly not the U.S. X, is not free to operate however it pleases in another country. It seems Turley has this idea that the internet is without boundaries. Platforms are required to abide by each country’s rules and laws. Not just U.S. laws.
It’s illegal to incite violence over the internet in the EU. It’s also illegal to engage in sex trafficking. Two things found to be occurring in the EU. X for allowing inciting rhetoric and Telegram for allowing sex trafficking.
“Platforms are required to abide by each country’s rules and laws.”
Irrespective of the *content* of those rules and laws?!
Is there any fascist nightmare you wouldn’t apologize for?
It’s their rules, their laws. Despite our own constitution, rhetoric inciting violence is NOT protected speech here or in the EU.
If they interpret speech as conduct it’s THEIR sovereign right to claim it is within their borders. It may be wrong according to our laws, but they are not wrong there. Turley has this idea that every nation should abide by OUR principles and be judged by them. We can say it’s wrong, immoral or censorious. At the end of the day it’s still not our rules or laws. Just as they can say the same of us. Elon was threatened with legal action if his platform continued to allow inciting riots and violence against immigrants because it’s a crime in THEIR countries. He can be held accountable by them, by their system and laws. What may be protected here is not necessarily protected elsewhere.
In Brazil a judge threatened to shut down X for allegedly interfering with their elections. If that’s what they found to be the case it’s up to Elon to fight it within THEIR system.
“It’s their rules, their laws.”
Svelaz the spastic, repeating this idiocy for the 17th time.
How do we get this here??
Maybe a ‘ministry of truth’ is next?
S@@tlibs are salivating over this one.
Just waiting for the first s@@tlib to explain why this really doesn’t mean censorship, it’s only to protect the rubes from themselves.
antonio
“It’s odd how many don’t understand the fact that different countries operate by different rules.”
Some countries permit slavery.
How nice to know you believe in slavery.
“It’s odd how many don’t understand the fact that different countries operate by different rules.”
It is odd how many do not understand that the basics of government are multiple millennia old ?
de Moreas is operating with the power of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
Regardless, Brazil is a “federal republic” with a government nearly identical to the US.
It has the same federal/state distinction – there are 26 brazillian states.
It is a constitutional republic – like the US with a nearly identical constitution.
It has three distinct branches of government – like the US – legislative, executive and judiciary.
it has the same separation of powers as the US.
If you were initially ignorant of the govenrment of Brazil – you can find these basics from Wikipedia
rather than spouting uninformed nonsense.
While Wikipedia may not give you all the nuances of Brazilian law – you can atleast clean that the Brazilian govenrment
has the same fundimental structure and divisions as the US.
Brazil does NOT follow the parliamentary model. Nor does it follow the french model.
And it certainly does not follow the communist models.
If you assume that the Brazillian government is structured identical to the US and that the division of powers is that of the US
you will be right 99% of the time.
If you want a Clue about what is going on in Brazil – I would suggest following Glenn Greenwald.
Greenwald is the reporter who broke the Snowden story for WaPo. He is a lawyer and journalist primarily on the US National security beat.
He is on the left, he is gay, and he is a brazillian citizen. Though most of his reporting has been on the US, he has also been reporting on Brazillian law and politics and has extensively covered de Moreas and the descent into Tryanny and censorship in Brazil.
If you had any familiarity with Brazil you would know that their government is structured very similar to ours – most “democracies” throughout the world either follow a model similar to that of the US constitution or to the British Parliamentary model. While there are exceptions – that is the NORM.
de Moreas was appointed to the Brazillian supreme court by conservatives – not those on the left and there was initial fear that he would be bad for the left. But that has not proved true – though de Moreas’s conduct is ideological in effect, it is driven more by power than ideology.
The Brazilian Supreme court reversed Lulu’s convictions for bribery and corruption – while there were problems with that conviction there was also absolutely no doubt that Lulu was corrupt. His administration was one of the more corrupt in Brazilian history.
Greenwald has noted that de Moreas is exercising powers that Brazils law and constitution do not give the courts.
Again the Brazilian system of government is modeled closely after that of the US.
There have been efforts to pass laws to give de Moreas some of the powers he is exercising – because there is some recognition that he is acting far outside the law and constitution. But Brazil’s legislature is closely divided and these measures do not pass.
I would note this tendency of one part of government to assume total power is typical of the left. We see it even in the US, Where presidents ignore rather than enforce the law and then exercise powers the US constitution does not give them.
Regardless in the Brazilian systems courts are limited to cases and controversies – settling legal and constitutional disputes.
They have no investigative power. They have no prosecutorial power. They have no power over parties that are not before them in a case or controversy.
There is no basis in Brazilian law or constitution for any of de Moreas is doing. In most instances there is not even a case before the courts.
“It’s odd how many don’t understand the fact that different countries operate by different rules”
It is an odd thing that many posters just make things up to suit themselves.
Yes, countries have different rules. Brazil however is very similar to the US and the Brazilian supreme court does not have the power de Moreas – is often unilaterally wielding.
“Their judiciary system is not going to operate the same way our does”
There are rare exceptions – Brazil not being one of those, but the function of the judiciary has been much the same throughout approximately 4000 years of human existence.
“but that doesn’t stop us from judging their systems as if they were run like ours.”
Brazil system IS very much like ours.
Regardless as noted – we have spent more than 4000 years evolving the way government should work. The Through much of the world we have governments with distinct executive, judiciary and legislative branches and functions. Both of the two major schemes used by democracies – such as that of the US and the parliamentary system have those same separations. Even inside of “Communist” systems such as the USSR and CCP there is atleast some semblance of the same distinctions.
Regardless these three branches and the separation of powers between them – despite minor nation to nation variation exist as they are because they work. They are not arbitrary. They did not evolve magically. They were not randomly chosen. They are the product of thousands of years experience.
It is likely that the next thousand years will see further improvement upon them. It is near certain that it will NOT any sustained tossing them out the window and making something else up – because we did not arrive where we are by accident. we arrived here because whatever the problems might be this arrangement WORKS WELL and efforts to try other arrangements have proven flawed.
I would note that one of the purposes of strong separation of powers is as an impediment to tyranny.
The history of totalitarian governments throughout the world is the history of the collapse of those separations of powers.
“Brazil is not Europe, and it’s certainly not the U.S.”
The Brazilian government is pretty much structured as the US government.
I would suggest that before you start ranting that others are ignorant of the rest of the world, that you might actually want to KNOW what you are talking about.
“X, is not free to operate however it pleases in another country.”
That is correct and Musk has closed down his offices in Brazil. X is a global internet platform. Brazil’s jurisdiction is limited to Brazil – just as the EU’s jurisdiction is limited to the EU and the US jurisdiction is limited to the US.
Brazil is free to demand that X censor its platform – however de Moreeas is NOT according to Brazilian law and constitution – which you are ignorant of.
The Brazilian legislature is free to pass laws that require X to censor – they have not done so.
You rant about X being obligated to follow Brazilian law – and at the same time are ignorant of the FACT that there is no Brazilian law that X is violating.
Regardless, X has chosen not to conduct business in Brazil. But X’s content is available globally. Brazil is free to pass laws blocking X in Brazil – AGAIN Brazil has not done so. de Moreas has done that by judicial fiat – there is no law allowing him to do so.
de Moreas is now fining Brazilian citizens for using VPN’s to access X – again without any Brazilian law that would empower him to do so.
But lets presume that de Moreas actually had the power that he is wielding. We would still call that Totalitarian.
Is your left wing brain so addled that you think it is acceptable for One man in ANY country to legitimately decide who can be heard, and who can not and to make laws out of whole cloth and to punish the citizens of his own country for thinking differently or just wishing to get their news from a source that “dear leader” does not like.
“It seems Turley has this idea that the internet is without boundaries. ”
That is correct – the internet IS without boundaries. Just as the atmosphere of earth pays no attention tot he boundaries of nations.
Brazil as a nation in accordance with its own constitution and laws is free to restrict the internet access of its own citizens – just as China does.
But the governemnt of Brazil does NOT have jurisdiction over the world.
X has chosen to remove its business presence from Brazil. It has removed itself entirely from de Moreas’s jurisdiction.
So Now De Moreas is targeting Brazilian citizens.
He is doing so without the constitutional or legal authority to do so.
I would further note that though you would note know it from what is occurring – Brazil has constitutional protections for free speech as well as a history of honoring those protections very similar to that of the US.
“Platforms are required to abide by each country’s rules and laws. Not just U.S. laws.”
Nope. The jurisdiction of each country is NOT global.
“It’s illegal to incite violence over the internet in the EU.”
That is probably not true. The governance of the EU is incredibly messy. The EU is fundamentally a monetary and trade union.
Structurally and legally it resembles the US articles of confederation. Even the EU govenrment is weird with an elected legislative body with very little power and a separate appointed body that is constantly assuming more power than any of the legal/constiotutional powers surrendered to the EU allow it.
Whjile the EU has lasted longer than many have predicted, it is not likely to last alot longer.
” It’s also illegal to engage in sex trafficking.”
Those on the left (and sometimes the right) like these nonsensical phrases.
What is “sex traficking” – is that prostitution ? Or is that the enslavement and transportation of people against their will ?
“Two things found to be occurring in the EU.”
Sex trafficking is occuring everywhere.
“X for allowing inciting rhetoric”
Nope – it is not X’s job to allow or disallow incitement. It is a platform – much like the phone service.
If a nation wishes to police the speech of peopole on X (or telegram) it is free to do so ITSELF.
“Telegram for allowing sex trafficking.” Telegram does not allow sex traficking any more than Roads allow the transportation of drugs.
“Their judiciary system is not going to operate the same way our does, but that doesn’t stop us from judging their systems as if they were run like ours.”
The Brazilian judiciary is constitutionally and legal defined and constrained pretty close to EXACTLY as ours.
It is not operating as ours is – because it is FAILING to operate as the Brazilian law and constitution require.
Btu AGAIN you appear to be OK with a constitutional republic with an elected legislature and an elected president who are directly responsible to the people, having a Supreme Court Justice that magically without any change in constitution takes over the role of the legislature and executive branches and creates law from thin air, enforces that law, prosecuted that law and stands in judement of those accused of violating that law.
If that WERE the structure of Brazilian government – we would call that Tyranny.
We would not be idiotically muttering as you are that Brazil is different – that we need not care that Brazil is becoming a totalitarian state without the consent of the Brazilian people.
And idiots like you would be saying – But we can not complain – it is a different country.
What would you be saying if Justice Thomas suddenly started ordering the arrest of left wing nuts and fining american citizens for accessing Facebook ?
“Brazil is not Europe”
Correct.
“and it’s certainly not the U.S. X”
Brazil is remarkably similar to the US.
“X, is not free to operate however it pleases in another country.”
X is not operating in Brazil. It has closed its offices and removed all Brazillian presence.
It has entirely removed itself from the jurisdiction of an authoritiarian Brazillian supreme court justices who does not follow breazil’s law or constitution with an executive branch that is allowing him to get away with this and a legislature that is too divided to stop it.
de Moreas is now going after the Brazillian people – as is typical left wing nuts only give lip service to democracy. As Turley noted the vast majority of brazillians get their news from X – that is THE FREE CHOICE OF BRAZILLIANS – and no de Moreas is trying to punish brazillian citizens.
Fining them all without any legal authority to do so.
But lets presue that he had such authority – do you think that before govenrment can tell people they can not us X for news and VPN’s to access X that maybe legislators elected by the people whould have to pass a law to that effect ?
What about in the EU or the US ? Do you think that before Government should be telling X or Telegram what content they should censor that maybe there should be a law passed by legislators allowing the government the power toi censor the speech of ordinary people ?
“It seems Turley has this idea that the internet is without boundaries.”
It is.
” Platforms are required to abide by each country’s rules and laws. Not just U.S. laws.”
False. companies are required to abide by the laws of the nations in which they operate.
X does not operate in Brazil.
“ de Moreas is operating with the power of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
Regardless, Brazil is a “federal republic” with a government nearly identical to the US.”
You posted a lot of words proving you don’t how the Brazilian judicial system works. You’re still comparing it to ours and assume it operates like ours because there are similarities. You don’t know Brazilian law, nor do I. Don’t pretend to know what you are talking about by googling up a few articles on Brazil.
“ Platforms are required to abide by each country’s rules and laws. Not just U.S. laws.”
False. companies are required to abide by the laws of the nations in which they operate.
X does not operate in Brazil.”
If X does not operate in Brazil why is it being shut down? X is operating in Brazil it’s allowed to operate in Brazil’s national networks.
All platforms ARE required to abide by the laws of the nation they are allowed to operate in. A requirement to abide by their rules is saying the same thing. You say it’s false? You’re saying your own claim is false. You’re not making any sense.
“ The Brazilian judiciary is constitutionally and legal defined and constrained pretty close to EXACTLY as ours.
It is not operating as ours is – because it is FAILING to operate as the Brazilian law and constitution require.”
“ close to EXACTLY”? No, it’s does not. It either operates close to ours or exactly like ours. If you have to say it operates close to exactly like ours you are admitting it is NOT operating like ours because it is NOT. You WANT to assume it does so your and Turley’s arguments makes sense.
It’s not failing. It’s operating as THEIR law requires it to operate according to THEIR laws. You’re still stuck on judging it against ours when you shouldn’t. You don’t know what their constitution requires or what Brazilian justices can do or not do. You don’t know Brazilian law anymore than I do. So stop pretending you know what you are talking about.
All we DO know is that they ARE operating within THEIR laws and we have no business judging it any more than they do to ours.
“how One Justice in Brazil has this type of power. ”
This doesn’t directly answer your question, but evidently 4 more (of the total of 11) judges on the Brasilian SC have come out in support of this policy.
https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/brazil-supreme-court-panel-unanimously-upholds-nationwide-block-x
I think that, in the absence of a more plausible explanation, the assumption that de Moraes has, and is utilizing, some unethical means to threaten the other justices in some serious way would be reasonable. The question also arises of why the remaining majority of BSC judges remain silent on this issue.
The sad thing is trump supporters and JT think nazi propaganda is news.
Nazi propaganda^^^^
Your post communicates nothing except that you look down on JT and Trump supporters.
Who is it you think is or is being called Nazi’s – Trump supporters, Musk, de Moraes, the Brazillian left ?
And what is it that you think is Propoganda ? Actual censorship ? Or news regarding actual censorship ?
John Say,
Well said.
They say Trump is literally Hitler, all the while they display and say things that would make the Nazi party proud or even envious.
Wow!!
Time for a tea party.