 |
| 3 users recommended this comment. What they said: |
|
matheusmoreira Aug 18, 2024 | on: X says it is closing operations in Brazil due to judge's… | context
A related article which I submitted to HN before the elections. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/21/world/americas/brazil-onl... Good comments from fellow brazilian HNers which provide the appropriate context: |
|
IG_Semmelweiss Aug 31, 2024 | on: Brazilian court orders suspension of X | context
That's not the case. The law as it applies, is thoroughly explained here. |
|
ivewonyoung Sep 20, 2024 | on: X and Starlink face $1M in daily fines for alleged ban… | context
Here's a good explanation of how the Brazilian Supreme Court did a creative and novel interpretation of the law to give itself powers to investigate and regulate the internet without law enforcement or legislative/executive involvent. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382 That's not enforcing the law. As documented by the New York Times, the first thing the judge did after getting powers to censor was to call a Brazilian magazine article about the person that gave him those powers 'fake news' and got it removed. It later turned out that article was true so he had egg on his face and had to retract his censorship order. > To run the investigation, Mr. Toffoli tapped Mr. Moraes, 53, an intense former federal justice minister and constitutional law professor who had joined the court in 2017. > In his first action, Mr. Moraes ordered a Brazilian magazine, Crusoé, to remove an online article that showed links between Mr. Toffoli and a corruption investigation. Mr. Moraes called it “fake news.” > Mr. Moraes later lifted the order after legal documents proved the article was accurate. |
This inquiry was originally opened in 2019 to investigate “fake news” and “digital militias”, and it is illegal.
- In Brazil, a judge cannot open an inquiry. This falls under the responsibility of the Federal Prosecution Service (Ministério Público) or the judiciary police. Yet, Inquiry 4874 was opened by the Supreme Court.
- You can’t simultaneously be the victim, judge and prosecutor in a case. Still, this is the situation in Inquiry 4874, where a Supreme Court justice prosecutes and judges supposed crimes committed against the Supreme Court.
- Defense attorneys must be given full access to case files. This has not happened in Inquiry 4874.
- The Brazilian attorney general in 2019 has determined the inquiry to be abandoned due to it being unconstitutional. While the Brazilian constitution says that the Federal Prosecution Service (Ministério Público) conducts investigations and determines their end, this determination was ignored by the Supreme Court.
- The inquiry violates the Supreme Court’s own internal regiment. That regiment, which was created in 1969, says that the Supreme Court can open inquiries for crimes committed “within its premises”. This was superseded by the 1988 constitution, which transfers the investigatory function to the judiciary police and the Federal Prosecution Service (Ministério Público). Still, even if you ignore that and go by what the internal regiment says, clearly the facts under investigation by Inquiry 4874 have not happened within the premises of the Supreme Court. To justify that, its justices have extended de definition of what consists the premises the Supreme Court to be the whole Brazilian territory, with the argument that crimes committed on the internet have a “diffuse character”.
- Inquiry 4874 does not investigate any specific fact. It was opened to investigate “fake news, slanderous denunciations and infractions covered by animus calumniandi, diffamandi e injuriandi affecting the honor and security of the Supreme Court, its members and their families”. No act or crime is specified, so the inquiry is a wildcard that can be (and is) used against anyone who is considered an enemy of the court.
- The Brazilian constitution specifies that the Supreme Court can only judge those with “privileged jurisdiction” (the president, vice-president, cabinet members, senators, congressmen, etc). However, Inquiry 4879 has judged and convicted many people who do not fall under that special jurisdiction.
- In Brazil you cannot choose a judge according to your preferences. In the Supreme Court, one must be selected at random, according to the court’s internal regiment. This has not happened in Inquiry 4879, as justice Dias Toffoli specifically chose justice Alexandre de Moraes to handle the investigation.
The irregularities above have turned the Brazilian Supreme Court into a kangaroo court.
Brazil is no longer a democracy.