[deleted]
Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts
21–30 of 55 posts
Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts
#22[dead]
Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the rule of law is an afterthought Are you implying that, given all your knowledge of Brazilian law, implicating Starlink to pay for X fines is against the law?
Considering the original requirement for twitter to remain active in Brazil was a human rights violation.... this too is a human rights violation. Speech ought to be free.
Are you referring to the speech that the judge ordered to be taken down? I don't know the details, but it seems the request was related to alleged anti-democratic remarks. I'm not familiar with Brazilian law, but I believe that some countries impose restrictions on free speech. Regardless of what was said, it's not uncommon to comply with the judge's order first and then challenge it in court until it can be published again.
Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering the original requirement for twitter to remain active in Brazil was a human rights violation.... this too is a human rights violation. Speech ought to be free.
Are you referring to the speech that the judge ordered to be taken down? I don't know the details, but it seems the request was related to alleged anti-democratic remarks. I'm not familiar with Brazilian law, but I believe that some countries impose restrictions on free speech. Regardless of what was said, it's not uncommon to comply with the judge's order first and then challenge it in court until it can be publishe…
Anti-democratic speech like asking for a military intervention is a federal crime in Brazil.
Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the rule of law is an afterthought Are you implying that, given all your knowledge of Brazilian law, implicating Starlink to pay for X fines is against the law?
Considering the original requirement for twitter to remain active in Brazil was a human rights violation.... this too is a human rights violation. Speech ought to be free.
Some of the accounts asked to be blocked might not have been committing crimes but ones asking for storming the congress, federal intervention and overturning a democratically elected president and questioning the electoral process are defined as anti-democratic acts, which are a criminal offense.
So if the original requirement is just putting Musk in his place thinking he's untouchable in his ivory tower is actually following the law in the country is a human rights violation... Then the EU is the most human rights violating group of countries in the world.
Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's not a source, could you link the report?
https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2024/05/15/find-out-how-ille...
and if someone questions this is a leftist website: https://fortune.com/2023/03/15/elon-musk-starlink-brazil-ama...
Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts
#27Am I understanding this correctly? The judge didn't like what X did (or didn't do) so he is making moves against StarLink, which would allow users to potentially bypass the censorship this judge is pushing for.
It's not a question whether the judge disliked what X did or not. They were subpoenaed to block the accounts engaged in anti-democratic speech. Failing to do so, X would have to pay a 2k USD daily fine until they cooperated.
X decided to challenge, Moraes raised the fine to 20k USD daily, they continued defying the order, until they closed the company thinking this is a legal way to circumvent the debt they owe to the state.
Moraes found out that there are links between Starlink and X (Musk), so he decided to go after Starlink instead, blocking their bank accounts until X pays what they owe to the Brazilian state.
Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts
#28What are the lumps on his face in that picture?
Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I understand it, X was fined, didn't pay, and the judge pierced a few corporate veils to discover that Starlink and X share a majority owner.
He had to pierce veils to figure that out? Couldn’t he just check Wikipedia like everyone else? Is this legal in the US? If company A owns B and C; and C does something bad, can A or B be fined?
“Piercing the corporate veil” isn’t about discovering something that is a secret. It’s a legal principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil
> Is this legal in the US?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil#Un...
Re: Brazil blocks Starlink bank accounts
#30[dupe]
Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41392962