Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[Edge-]

You have another thing coming if you think having a judge force bans or the shuttering of the platform is opposing violent fascists. You might as well donate your own money to their groups, for all the good you are doing for them!

Casual reminder that this is not some lone, rogue Justice going off the beaten path, and that this decision in particular was reviewed by a Supreme Court panel of 5 Justices (including the justice in question) who unanimously agreed with the ruling to ban the platform given their refusal to comply with Brazilian law.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

You have another thing coming if you think having a judge force bans or the shuttering of the platform is opposing violent fascists. You might as well donate your own money to their groups, for all the good you are doing for them!

You can tell how pro-democracy everybody is around here when people celebrate the threatened arrest of lawyers. Oh, but it's the good guys doing it, so we can't actually examine what this does for justice and presenting a defense in a court of law.

I'll have to bookmark this for the inevitable assertions a couple of months from now, "Nobody said that the judge threatening to arrest a corporation's lawyer was a good thing! You're making that up!"

You are making that up.

No one said that.

The judge shouldn't have to have threatened to arrest a lawyer. The corporation should follow the laws of the country they are operating in.

[Belize]

You have another thing coming if you think having a judge force bans or the shuttering of the platform is opposing violent fascists. You might as well donate your own money to their groups, for all the good you are doing for them!

So you don't actually have any arguments other than making shit up, and won't deny carrying water for violent fascists. Very good.

[tehdang]

I still think it's wild that you're effectively saying a billionaire should have free reign to break and completely ignore a nation's laws...

I'm critical of judges, not legislators.

Casual reminder that this is not some lone, rogue Justice going off the beaten path, and that this decision in particular was reviewed by a Supreme Court panel of 5 Justices (including the justice in question) who unanimously agreed with the ruling to ban the platform given their refusal to comply with Brazilian law.

As I said earlier, I haven't seen any written statement on why or how they reviewed. Just a vote total. A justice having unilateral authority to ban users, and not offer any explanation, is ripe for abuse, and in the case of doing so to elected political representatives, is almost de-facto abuse. Five other judges giving the thumbs up afterwards doesn't change it.

The judge shouldn't have to have threatened to arrest a lawyer.

I'm glad to finally find a point of agreement with you.

So you don't actually have any arguments other than making shit up, and won't deny carrying water for violent fascists. Very good.

This is a retreat for authoritarians. You could literally propose to immediately jail 50 elected right-wing Brazilian politicians, and still resort to calling anybody who disagreed "carrying water for violent fascists." I'm still going to object to process. And when you bring up that some people are just too icky for you to evaluate beyond some "any defense is moral endorsement," it isn't actually addressing anything. People do this all the time for wanting due process for drug dealers and accused murderers, and I think you'll find them strange bedfellows.

[Cthulhu 2020]

https://apnews.com/article/brazil-mu...10d058af8dbc0c


Brazilians not taking this lying down.

And very right to do so. Threatening to arrest the X lawyer? Banning after withdrawing said lawyer? Threatening citizens with exorbitant fines for using VPNs to restore access? Judges are showing a bit too much reliance on authoritarianism, benevolently wielded, to protect the population from speech. And going so far as to ban elected politicians, and to not require explanations for account bans, will mark this as a thoroughly despicable action worthy of blanket condemnation.

It's always funny how ENFORCING THE WRITTEN LAW is always referred to as authoritarianism by reich wingers when they don't like the law, but they will gladly enforce laws not written in the books with violence because it's something they want to see happen, like how undocumented immigration is at the same level as a misdemeanor but they want to apply the death sentence for border crossing without papers.

It's the same as what used to happen on these forums when they were inundated with right wing trolls back in the day. They'd break the rules of the forums with overt trolling, racism, bigotry, direct insults, etc. then cry about being banned because they broke the rules. Then when someone would call out their dumb strawman arguments in some other thread they'd go cry to the mods about "being attacked".

Following the rules is always so hard for authoritarians because they want to be the ones in control of what others are allowed to do, meanwhile they demand they have the freedom to do whatever they want.

Nobody hates following the written law more than authoritarian fascists.

[Edge-]

As I said earlier, I haven't seen any written statement on why or how they reviewed. Just a vote total. A justice having unilateral authority to ban users, and not offer any explanation, is ripe for abuse, and in the case of doing so to elected political representatives, is almost de-facto abuse. Five other judges giving the thumbs up afterwards doesn't change it.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...sive=1&title=1

Here's the apparent ruling in full, though it's not in English.

That being said it's curious to see you so upset with another country apparently using what you may have thought was the equivalent of the SCOTUS shadow docket, which has been extensively used by the Roberts court in recent years. Frequently to the benefit of conservative causes. All without you or conservatives appearing to express any concern over the lack of explanation for those rulings.

Maybe because you mostly liked those rulings, unlike this one?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I'm glad to finally find a point of agreement with you.

Quote in full context:

The judge shouldn't have to have threatened to arrest a lawyer. The corporation should follow the laws of the country they are operating in.

Despite you deliberately quoting me out of context...we do not agree. You believe Twitter should be above the laws of the countries in which it operates.

[Elder Millennial]

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...sive=1&title=1

Here's the apparent ruling in full, though it's not in English.

That being said it's curious to see you so upset with another country apparently using what you may have thought was the equivalent of the SCOTUS shadow docket, which has been extensively used by the Roberts court in recent years. Frequently to the benefit of conservative causes. All without you or conservatives appearing to express any concern over the lack of explanation for those rulings.

Maybe because you mostly liked those rulings, unlike this one?

HOW DARE THE BRAZILIAN SUPREME COURT NOT GIVE ME, PERSONALLY A DETAILED WRITTEN EXPLANATION OF THEIR RULING IN ENGLISH AND ESPARANTO!

The gall on these uppity churrasco eating Brazilians!

[Belize]

This is a retreat for authoritarians. You could literally propose to immediately jail 50 elected right-wing Brazilian politicians, and still resort to calling anybody who disagreed "carrying water for violent fascists." I'm still going to object to process. And when you bring up that some people are just too icky for you to evaluate beyond some "any defense is moral endorsement," it isn't actually addressing anything. People do this all the time for wanting due process for drug dealers and accused murderers, and I think you'll find them strange bedfellows.

My brother in christ, you're building a mighty large strawman there.
Twitter went through due process, and decided to openly deny the law, which is why they're being punished.
No one is calling for arresting random right-wingers, I just happened to point out that the "Brazilian's who won't take this lying down!!" are the same group that are anti-democratic, and the reason why Twitter is currently in the mess it's in.

[tehdang]

My brother in christ, you're building a mighty large strawman there.
Twitter went through due process, and decided to openly deny the law, which is why they're being punished.
No one is calling for arresting random right-wingers, I just happened to point out that the "Brazilian's who won't take this lying down!!" are the same group that are anti-democratic, and the reason why Twitter is currently in the mess it's in.

The country's supreme court empowered this judge with the power to unilaterally order the banning of accounts, without even the requirement to write a persuasive case as to why it was necessary. You say things like "due process," and "deny the law," but without explanation, I can only assume that you want the judges to be the law. So please elaborate if you have some connection to make to a law, some explanation to why a unilateral account ban is "due process," or what would be the difference if you were calling for the immediate arrest of elected politicians (since defending them against arrest could also fit under your "carry water for violent fascists."

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...sive=1&title=1

Here's the apparent ruling in full, though it's not in English.

That being said it's curious to see you so upset with another country apparently using what you may have thought was the equivalent of the SCOTUS shadow docket, which has been extensively used by the Roberts court in recent years. Frequently to the benefit of conservative causes. All without you or conservatives appearing to express any concern over the lack of explanation for those rulings.

Maybe because you mostly liked those rulings, unlike this one?

Portuguese is not my forte, but good find.

The "equivalent of the SCOTUS shadow docket" is a very big reach. The US, thankfully, does not empower judges to demand bans of users on social media platforms ... but if some judge was crazy enough to do so, I would expect a real appellate trial that tackle the issues. The shadow docket would not be used for something this earth-shattering.

[Edge-]

Portuguese is not my forte, but good find.

The "equivalent of the SCOTUS shadow docket" is a very big reach. The US, thankfully, does not empower judges to demand bans of users on social media platforms ... but if some judge was crazy enough to do so, I would expect a real appellate trial that tackle the issues. The shadow docket would not be used for something this earth-shattering.

You speak of a specific issue, yet earlier complained about the lack of transparency and explanation. I was sticking with the overall theme of the "process" you were complaining about, not just the ruling, but I guess it was just the ruling and not the lack of transparency?

Which I can only imagine is because I found a link to the document so that particular line of attack on this explained, legal, and unanimously affirmed ruling is no longer valid and it's back to, "I still don't like the outcome." now with the bonus angle of "if it happened in America" more explicitly.

[Endus]

You speak of a specific issue, yet earlier complained about the lack of transparency and explanation. I was sticking with the overall theme of the "process" you were complaining about, not just the ruling, but I guess it was just the ruling and not the lack of transparency?

Which I can only imagine is because I found a link to the document so that particular line of attack on this explained, legal, and unanimously affirmed ruling is no longer valid and it's back to, "I still don't like the outcome." now with the bonus angle of "if it happened in America" more explicitly.

It's real odd to claim you know exactly what the charges were and that they're clearly malicious rather than reasonable, while simultaneously admitting you haven't read the actual charges and can't/won't bother to make the time to translate the Portugese to get over that hurdle.

Why would we entertain claims when the one making them openly admits they don't have any basis for the things they're claiming?

[Belize]

The country's supreme court empowered this judge with the power to unilaterally order the banning of accounts, without even the requirement to write a persuasive case as to why it was necessary. You say things like "due process," and "deny the law," but without explanation, I can only assume that you want the judges to be the law. So please elaborate if you have some connection to make to a law, some explanation to why a unilateral account ban is "due process," or what would be the difference if you were calling for the immediate arrest of elected politicians (since defending them against arrest could also fit under your "carry water for violent fascists."

You're on vacation so whatever, but I'm going to explain this to you very slowly, since you're clearly hard of reading:

The judge did not unilaterally ban Twitter on a whim.

The judge followed Brazilian laws, and gave Twitter multiple requests, warnings and grace periods to rectify their position in order to comply with Brazilian law.

The ban was then unanimously upheld by a panel of judges.

*Bolsanaro's followers are violent fascists that tried, and failed, to overturn the results of a fair democratic election.

[fwc577]

You know what has a nice ring to it?

Felon Musk.

I bet he's done some shit and I'd love it if the DOJ could dig it up an charge him.

[Belize]

I'm sure all our free speech warriors will be up in arms any second now.

Well, assuming this doesn't affect their ability to browse MMOC

[Edge-]

I'm sure all our free speech warriors will be up in arms any second now.

Well, assuming this doesn't affect their ability to browse MMOC

I'm willing to bet Leon will comply with these new rules without argument.

[Karreck]

You know what has a nice ring to it?

Felon Musk.

I bet he's done some shit and I'd love it if the DOJ could dig it up an charge him.

I pronounced it as Elon with an F in my head. Like Fee-Lawn.

[Sorshen]

Not sure how much worse it can get.

[Odinfrost]

Not sure how much worse it can get.

Doesn't that weirdo have enough kids as it? Half of which hates his guts?

[Breccia]

Not sure how much worse it can get.

He's baiting her to leave Twitter out of spite, and willing to look like the biggest creep on the planet to do it.

Being a Trump supporter demands sacrifice. Of yours. Not Trump.