Posted on 09/05/2024 4:07:14 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
What happened in Brazil this past week — a magistrate suspended Twitter and threatened telecommunication companies, as well as Apple and Google — did not happen in a vacuum. To briefly sum up the order handed down:
Brazilian Supreme Court justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered that Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) be completely de-platformed, citing government speech rules against hate and “disinformation.” Any Brazilian citizen caught using a VPN to skirt the legal order could face fines that equal about $9,000.
Moraes has also attempted to freeze Starlink accounts in the country, Musk’s satellite and internet service. What is happening in Brazil is a blueprint for a Kamala Harris Department of Justice to target X and Musk here in the United States. How do we know this? Because Harris herself has spoken almost identically about the need to regulate what she considers “hate speech” and “disinformation” on private social media platforms. Plus, the idea of targeting telecommunication companies and Apple and Google app stores has been a policy floated in the past by Democrats and their friends in the media.
In 2021, Oliver Darcy, then of CNN, wrote, “TV providers should not escape scrutiny for distributing disinformation.” Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’s pick for vice president, told MSNBC that “hate speech” and “disinformation” are not legally protected speech. Walz, in an appearance with MSNBC’s Joy Reid, said, “I think we need to push back on this. There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”
In 2019, as part of her far-left campaign push, Kamala Harris told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Twitter should take action to ban Donald Trump, which they eventually did. In a speech to the NAACP in 2019, Harris told a crowd that she would direct her DoJ and law enforcement to “counter this extremism. We will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms. Because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy.” She continued, “If you act as a megaphone for disinformation or cyber warfare, if you don’t police your platform, we are going to hold you accountable as a community.”
Such action, of course, would be wildly unconstitutional — and it’s not the only time Harris has threatened social media companies over her own empowered definition of hate speech and disinformation. Nothing suggests Harris has backed off this stance.
You can bet that the Harris campaign is studying how the executive order in Brazil is playing out, because it is a blueprint for a Harris DoJ to pursue action against X and Elon Musk in America. Harris and Walz have signaled every intent to pursue similar actions against telecommunication companies they deem a dangerous threat to democracy. The language that Justice Alexandre de Moraes used in his orders against Musk are almost identical to the language used by Harris and Walz, and until she offers a clear explanation that this is no longer her position, we should take the threat of a Harris administration and DoJ seriously when it comes to preserving free speech online.
The unintended consequences would include mass flight of social media platforms and their money to friendlier countries. If the left can deplatform Musk, the right might use the same powers to deplatform as well. (Even if they don’t at present, possibility would give start-ups and some established players the heebie-jeebies.
Despots are desperate to deplatform dissent.
Well, we can all see that the First Amendment did not stop the government of Brazil from shutting down media that they didn’t like — so I see no reason why the First Amendment could possibly hamstring the US government in this matter.
Hate speech, satire, parody, commercial speech and even lies are absolutely protected speech. Many USSC rulings on this. The only “speech” that could possibly be prohibited are crimes (like images that are illegal which is why I put speech in quotes) and maybe incitement to crimes - but incitement too has a very narrow interpretation as defined by USSC. It has to a specific call to commit a crime not some vague statement that might possibly cause someone to commit a crime. And whether it can be prohibited is another question. Incitement is something you can be arrested and tried for, but hard to see how it can be prohibited.
Just one more reason why we need to protect the makeup of the Supreme Court. If it falls into the wrong hands we could get a rogue court like this one man in Brazil rules over. He got Lula out of prison and now wants to insulate him from critics and lock up his opponents.
Why should any business go to Brazil ?
And I doubt that this judge is giving Harris a path. More likely the US Government pushed this judge to take extreme measures.
And how long will this judge live?
Things are pretty rugged in Brazil.
There is in the former Constitution...
"Free" speech is "Free" speech...
"Hate" and "Disinformation" are not excluded!
I heard it’s possible he could be impeached if the voters put the right party in charge in the next election but I am not familiar with Brazil’s process.
The guarantees of the First Amendment are the foundation of liberty. When the federal goverment targets those rights, it becomes the adversary of liberty and the people. It is breaking the covenant between the government and the governed.
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
The braindead, single cat lady and other libs won’t mind if anyone’s speech is cut off ... as long as they continue to get their Free Stuff.
Truly disgusting, but, true.
They need to take a good look at what’s happening to pensioners, in the UK, for a hint about how long they’ll continue to receive their Free S#!t, once the commie’s are fully installed.
Customers? They have the 8th largest economy in the world.
Yep
Video Kamala: I will direct the DOJ to censor “misinformation and hate” online
https://rumble.com/v5drfkj-kamala-i-will-direct-the-doj-to-censor-misinformation-and-hate-online.html
Though in the grand scheme of things it might not mean much since it gets ignored on the regular, but there is one major difference between the United States and Brazil:
The United States has the First Amendment. Brazil does not.
Harris, Walz, and the dems in general can go pound sand. Brazil can go pound sand, too, as far as I’m concerned.
And who determines what is disinformation or not? Much of what has been called disinformation in the past few years has in reality been true, or possibly true.
The noose of the one world government is tightening.
What happens when X goes offshore?
Ask Roger Goodell, as we all know how much the NFL stands up for what’s right.
Trump would have put a stop to this entire fiasco in short order. He would told Brazil that they would get nothing from the US until the nonsense stopped. And it would have stopped.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.