In other news

I wonder what is your stance about guns ?
No phone in USA shouldn’t happen .
I mean they would agree kids could own guns in some states in school I think …
But no phone ?

second amendment doesn't apply to minors afaik

it's a school shooting joke. really only a semi-joke. as long as we just keep allowing kids to get terrorized by firearms we should probably allow them to have cell phones to call for help.

I think restricting phone use in school is a good thing. Gun crime and murder ia down across the board in the US and the only reason why school shootings are up because its glorified for revenue purposes and kids really do do the stupid **** that they see from others. I dont think you should hinder the child's education and well being because hed be about a 50 50 chance of experimenting a school shooting if he were to live to experience a million lifetimes - not to mention thinking a cell phone is going to save the day or is needed to say goodbye. I blame the dumbass degenerate parents for thinking phones are that powerful and needed for their child.

The kids will be much better off without them

no matter what you think of the specific twitter-brasil spat, the fact that starlink finances in Brasil have been frozen in anticipation that the money will be needed to pay Twitter fines (????) puts Lula Brazil straight into the "rogue third world country" label

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/29/elon-mus...

communists truly disregard basic principles of the rule of law every step they take.

ofc not a beep from those who talked 24/7 about how bolsonaro was a fascist (even if he never acted in any authoritarian way like this)

So u believe if foreigners break the laws they should not be held accountable and pay fines for it ?
thats good news for tourist in your country i suppose ?
Just break the law no question ask , its all good ?

I’m not sure what the justification is for freezing starlink access (presumably it is not all owned by Elon unless organized as such in Brasil), but are these people possibly accused of crimes or using the platform to further crimes? That seems to be what is being claimed by the Brasilian government.

Given X has complied with other government takedown requests, I can’t help but feel like this is a cynical ploy by Elon. He has used his platform to insert himself into geopolitics so I expect him to face more and more scrutiny.

Also Lula’s campaign has been hit with takedown notices as well in the past. It seems that the right to free speech is not that strong in Brasil.

Lastly Bolsonaro pulled the same stunt as Trump last election, and it seems Brasil takes it much more seriously. Most countries are not like America, which allows seditious lies to proliferate so long as they don’t lead to a conspiracy to commit a crime or a committed crime.

The only reason I’m having doubts about this is that Elon is a compulsive liar or at the very least gullible so I’m not keen to take his word on most things.

read the article (from a leftist source, not written by musk).

Brazil wants a legal representative Twitter brazil to exist, Twitter has no employees in Brasil because the crazy judge threatened to arrest them if they don't comply with orders.

the orders they were refusing weren't about takedown of illegal content, rather of giving data about accounts (some of them not even in Brazil).

but again point is no matter that controversy, the **** has starlink to do with anything of the above? it's simply incredible to even think of touching starlink, that's the third world country banana behavior

I did read a few articles about the situation last night. It seems very complicated. Brazil had a similar Jan 6 type event which probably caused the increase in scrutinization of misinformation/disinformation. But Lula has also been censored by the same judge for disinformation in an attack ad implying Bolsonaro was a pedo for some remarks he made about a group of 14 year old refugees he thought were prostitutes.

It seems like in Brasil there is just no expectation that slanderous or false statements are protected speech, and the escalating punishment is the result of that. It would never fly in US of America, but not every country is like the US. Also, Elon is lying about his free speech stance when it comes to foreign governments and seems to be targeting Lula due to his political positions.

I have no idea how Starlink is organized in Brasil or what the reason is the judge froze their assets. Perhaps because they were sufficiently seen as a Musk asset according to Brasilian law, although it seems to be a controversial move. I just have zero percent trust in Musk to relay any situation accurately though because he is a compulsive liar.

Article isn't about "Jan 6 situations" or Anything like that (which didn't happen in Brazil, not in the sense of Bolsonaro having anything to do with it).

It's not about free speech either. That's the twitter controversy.

My point was very clear. Brasil is sequestering financial accounts of STARLINK because TWITTER has a problem with the government. That is third world rationales "musk is involved with both so it's ok", stuff like in Mafia movies or something.

Brasil event vs Twitter is about free speech or lack thereof, another topic.

But they still have absolutely no legal or rational justification to touch STARLINK, unless you thi k like a mafioso.

Keep in mind Twitter is a private company, but he is far from being the only owner.

no idea how this has you up in arms. dude is the face and self proclaimed owner of two major companies, he owes the country money, they are seizing the money that is still in the country so he can't remove it and escape accountability.

seems fairly standard practice.

He doesn't own the country money. One company he owns as a majority owner might end up owning the country money.

Which still has absolutely nothing to do with any other company he is a majority owner of.

Simply insane to even suggest the contrary.

They are called limited liability companies for a reason. Anything stops with the company.

Fairly standard practice only for people who completely disregard any notion of the rule of law, IE Marxists like you, no wonder you agree with that completly abusive and oppressive practice.

Even if you possess a company at 100% (which isn't the case of musk with Twitter), if the company owed the government money you are strictly limited exclusively to that company assets in your country.

If there aren't any you suck it up, you don't go after assets owned by the majority owner, because there is no legal basis to do so, and you have to accept you can't touch the owner, as a company liability stops with it's assets.

Jfc this is basic rules in civilized countries. How can you deny this? Are you so deranged as to justify complete illegality because you agree on the merits? Is this what the left is always about at the end?

"On Thursday, reports from G1 Globo in Brazil had revealed that de Moraes had ordered “the freezing of all financial assets” of Musk’s companies in Brazil, including SpaceX-owned Starlink, to “guarantee the payment of fines” the court had levied against X."

seems like that's past tense. fines "levied"

Levied against x, freeze other company assets.

Levied against x, not against musk.

Do you understand the legal difference? You are a lawyer ffs.

X owes you something, you go after anything else you are disregarding the basic rile of law

it's called "piercing the corporate veil" at least in the US. no idea how it works in brazil, but it's not some unheard of concept outside of legal norms.

Twitter isn't fully owned by musk jfc

no idea why that changes anything.

so what is your libertopian solution to the situation.

international billionaire owns 74% of company A and owns 44% of B's parent company while having 79% of the voting power in company B. company A breaks the law in the country, intimidates and threatens the judiciary personally and refuses to pay fines. Company A maintains no sizeable assets or money in the country and refuses to even have a legal representative in country.

is it just "whoops he got away with that one, guess we gotta let him do whatever he wants, shucks.." because he has a piece of paper?

Oh your point had absolutely nothing to do with comparing Lula and Bolsonaro, despite you DIRECTLY making that comparison?

Again I have absolutely no idea whether or not this is common course of action in Brasil or what legal recourse the country has when a guy who has proudly talked about how we can "coup whoever we want" like some 19th century robber-baron is trying to undermine their legal system.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/n...

I'm not in favor of them doing this to whoever they want but this man is the same person who has complied with takedown requests from governments in the past, including Turkey and India.

And remember, it isn't even a given that their actions are not justified here. There have been many times in the past where even the US has had to restrict free speech temporarily for the purposes of an extreme situation. I'm not sure what the requested tweets are, but I do know that Musk has no problem censoring words like "cisgender" on his platform. He is a FAKE free speech absolutist and I feel no sympathy for him, just like I don't feel sympathy for the people that called for my banning and then got banned themselves. I'm not going to protect Elon to my standards when he is a lying narcissist who I have no reason to believe is being accurate in how he frames this issue.

I made the comparison because the current actions of Lula governments are much worse than anything Bolsonaro did in government by a large margin, that was and is my claim.

Purported private actions by Bolsonaro are irrelevant.

You guys love authoritarian psychopaths in government, it just needs to be leftist ones.

Try to read again, the insanity isn't the spat with Twitter, the absolute third world insanity is going after STARLINK assets

Absolutely yes, how is this even a question?

You want to touch B because of A you need an order against the PERSON not the company, and then you go after the person share of B.

You need to prove personal legal responsibility of Musk in this case before even thinking of touching any asset just because it's related to Musk, and you know that

I really want to be able to read the ruling but they’re cringe and don’t have a readily available database. I’m really curious what if any law/precedent/remedy in the law the SC cited to justify this. I know in the US there are certain situations where another company can be punished because of a shared owner that acted poorly, but yeah I’d say in such an extreme action there needs to be some strong justification.

Yes sure but for the nth time, the third world banana action was the freezing of STARLINK funds and transactions, not the twitter controversy (which should be a separate debate then we decide exactly which regulation made sense, which didn't and so on).

Ah btw the same guy (unelected judge to be clear) decided to ban all VPNs in Brazil (unclear why he has that power to begin with), because otherwise it's too easy to circumvent the twitter ban.

The guy was described by the NYT as an authoritarian freak in 2023 to be clear.

And Lula which could have some direct and indirect oversight on these actions is letting the Mussolini judge act indiscriminately, because he agrees with the actions

A few media outlet cited the rule as justified because the companies are "the same group" (ie apparently the crazy judge claimed that in the order).

They aren't a common law country precedent matters very little, it's about statutory power or lack thereof.

Detail is that the Mussolini guy is just stretching what the supreme court can do and there is no official recourse inside the system.

There is "political recourse" in the sense of the executive or the legislative body can start making noise then you have a constitutional crisis and .... Fill in the blanks because it's unchartered territory.

Imagine the american SCOTUS starting to issue random emergency orders with weird justifications, who would you appeal to?

That’s how you believe it should work but every countries are allowed to vote laws as they see fit aren’t they ?
That is called freedom of deciding for themselves .
If you don’t agree with the laws, something the right love to say , well you just have to leave then …