Slashdot Mirror
Brazilian Judge Orders 24-hour Shutdown of Google and Youtube
_Sharp'r_ writes "Judge Flavio Peren of Mato Grosso do Sul state in Brazil has ordered the arrest of the President of Google Brazil, as well as the 24-hour shutdown of Google and Youtube for not removing videos attacking a mayoral candidate. Google is appealing, but has recently also faced ordered fines of $500K/day in Parana and the ordered arrest of another executive in Paraiba in similar cases."
Early reports indicated that the judge also ordered the arrest of the Google Brazil President, but the story when this was written is that the police haven't received any such order (and an earlier such order was overuled recently). The video is in violation of their pre-election laws.
Note that in this case it's about good censorship. Most countries on earth have these kind of pre-election rules to combat PR attack on the last hours of elections. Most sane countries have these laws. Since it's just 24 hours, it really just seems to ban it right before elections and is not some penalty on Google or Youtube. Google is intentionally breaking laws here and should be punished.
case in point pornography is recognized as to be limited to certain class of ages, and various type of media are limited by ages. Also you can't yell fire in theater, another good type of censorship and similar. Finally libel laws are certainly limitation and therefor censorship of some type of speech, and in some country if you swear and insult a policeman you can get fined. In such a case , the censorship is to make sure *everybody* is on the same level shortly before the election, without a media blitz. Such law exists actually in many country. So yeah your insinuation that there is no good censorship is noted but completely ridiculous.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Typical first post style thoughtless comment. As others have already said, censorship is just a label and sure I think we can agree that censorship is generally a bad thing, but to categorically say censorship is always bad is silly. There are plenty of times where freedom of speech is suppressed where the marginal value of the speech to society as a whole are outweighed by the negative effects such as yelling fire in a crowd or libeling others or revealing government information that actually jeopardizes national security (launch codes to nukes, not just politicians using it as a cover-up for when they are caught in a web of lies).
One country that have a lot of potential to became a super power, has a archaic justice system
where laws not always are applied, politicians never go arrested and also they never have public forum,
and the last president didn't do anything good in 8 years, just did what communists does better.... lies and benefits to any one.
If they say that is a Democratic country, this sort of thing should be allowed as in any other Democratic country does. It's a joke that judge.
I guess free speech in brazil is out of the question....
President Google, a browser in Brazil is caching
SHUT
DOWN
EVERYTHING!
Politics in Brazil is under control of the Government these laws are not intended to help population but to control.
Other countries are only noticing that now because we are on the spotlight.
I'm sure all the people who want/need to use google / youtube on a daily basis are going to be so happy with this ruling.
I hate trotting out this quote every so often, but...
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
Commissioner Pravin Lal
"U.N. Declaration of Rights"
From Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams [...]."
Good job, Brazil: If they don't listen to the law, give them a fine high enough that it's relevant, and arrest the responsible people.
I'm not choosing sides whether this is good or bad censorship. I'm just delighted that they have the balls to stand up to large companies. Not every country does that... and in almost every case the responsible management get away with it without any punishment. Most punishments are fines, which will just slightly reduce profit. Arresting the management might get their attention.
They will probably make more than $500K/day in Brazil by keeping it online.
Brazilian GNP - as sourced by Google.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
"case in point pornography is recognized as to be limited to certain class of ages, and various type of media are limited by ages"
That doesn't mean any of this is actually good though. It's such a controversal subject that no one's really got the balls to study it, but those that have have suggested that just as controlled provision of drugs to addicts is a better way to ween them off it than simply trying to ban the substance outright, that working with paedophiles and controlling their access to this sort of information, and similarly allowing kids access to age restricted content are better than prohibition.
What is actually a better idea is spending those resources that are otherwise spent enforcing this sort of thing going after those producing the content in the first place - i.e. actually catching cold hard child abusers and those who fuel the industry by profiting off of it rather than those who simply consume it. Spending those resources actually protecting children is a far superior option to wasting money censoring it with no demonstrable positive effect despite much money being spent lobbying that there is. As there's no evidence that viewing content does actually make you more likely to commit a crime based on said content, what do you think is better? Allowing those people to view that content free on the internet, or forcing them underground where they actually have to give money to people who profit off said content and hence driving the production of said content causing real actual harm to the people who suffer from it?
It's the same with copyright, the music industry claims that downloading MP3s funds terrorism and organised crime but that's exactly backwards - preventing people downloading MP3s means they'll just buy their music cheap from dodgy backstreet dealers where the money genuinely does go to organised crime and terrorism.
Your argument is based on the assumption that laws we have are exactly right, and are the best and only way to deal with some of societies issues, but that assumption seems almost certainly likely to be false.
I'm not against encouraging people not be stupid - i.e. shouting fire in a crowded theatre by fining/jailing them, but that's not censorship. They're allowed to do it, they're just encouraged not to by ensuring there are consequences and there IS a subtle difference between outright censorship, and nudging people towards censoring themselves whatever people say.
even is a law in many countries it doesn't make it right! The so called good censorship it's only a matter of majority definition and this doesn't make it right neither. I don' say it's right or wrong.
One of the few countries where you can be arrested for doing a joke that is not funny ... in a comedy show ...
Freedom of speech is not on our dictionaries and we don't fight for it .. ever
Then form an orderly queue as you pass through the well marked and lit emergency exits.
The use of this as justification of limits on free speech again again is getting old. Its a meme that has had its day, move on.
Brasil has gone from industrial and technological revolution to leftist, entitlement empire in just a few short years.
Don't be too hard on Brazil.
After all, they're just following the US's example in a race to the bottom. It's just taking the US longer because we had more freedom and wealth to start with before the Left gained control.
Winston Churchill had some relevant thoughts here:
(Note that "Liberalism" as Churchill uses it here more closely resembles US conservative (small-"C") views.)
Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty. [Loud cheers.] Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right. [Cheers.] Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference. [Cheers.] Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a minimum standard for the mass. [Cheers.] Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly. [Cheers.] These are the great distinctions which I draw, and which, I think, you will think I am right in drawing at this election between our philosophies and our ideals.
And further:
Ah, gentlemen, I don't want to embark on bitter or harsh controversy, but I think the exalted ideal of the Socialists - a universal brotherhood, owning all things in common - is not always supported by the evidence of their practice. [Laughter.] They put before us a creed of universal self-sacrifice. They preach it in the language of spite and envy, of hatred, and all uncharitableness. [Cheers.] They tell us that we should dwell together in unity and comradeship. They are themselves split into twenty obscure factions, who hate and abuse each other more than they hate and abuse us. [Hear, hear, and laughter.] They wish to reconstruct the world. They begin by leaving out human nature. [Laughter.] Consider how barren a philosophy is the creed of absolute Collectivism. Equality of reward, irrespective of service rendered! It is expressed in other ways. You know the phrase - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." [Laughter.] How nice that sounds. Let me put it another way - "You shall work according to your fancy; you shall be paid according to your appetite." [Cheers.]
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Just because you have an agenda doesn't mean you can just forget to do the research, idiot.
Greetings to the parallel world, stranger! Almost all technological, economic and social indexes have improved since the 90s in Brazil. The country improving dramatically, despite the left versus right babbling.
regardless of your personal opinion of a law, if you ( individually or as a corporate entity) choose to ignore that law then you accept that you may suffer the consequences. If you are making a moral stand that you beleive the law is wrong and therefore ignore it, you have no-one but yourself to blame when the law enforcement organisations or judiciary punish you in line with that. There are many laws I disagree with as an example for me as a european, Allowing people to vote before they are legally allowed to drink is assinine. However If i choose to supply alcohol to an adult under the age of 21 in teh us I have no-one but myself to blame if I end up in a shower block bending over for Bubba. Hell one of the fonding priciples of America is supposedly no taxation without representation, try cliaming that as a defence as non-us citizen working in the us for not paying tax, and see hwo quickly you lose your case for tax evasion. Regardless of your opinion of the political system of a country, the Law in a democracy ( brazil is a democracy) is the will of the people ( maybe at a slight remove due to the way representative democarcies work) and if you chose to ignore it you run the risk of puniashment.
No wonder why Brazilians get offended when one points out the degree of corruption in that country; a true banana republic.
HA HA Look at the third world shitholes struggle with lack of free speech! You are never going to get off your tiny island if you keep it up!
Google should just shut off their entire net-block forever. Let them rot in the dark without information.
You sir, have no clue of what you're talking about.
So there's this election law from the past. But what if someone uses email and DailyMotion to spread last hour propaganda? Shutting down individual sites is silly. Brazil should cut off the Internet or change the law instead.
Pornography. I'm still not so sure pornography is bad.
We like to watch entertainment of the things we like or are interested in. We watch food shows. No one has a problem with that. We watch beauty contests. No one... okay, 'few' have a problem with that. Olympics? Fishing? Golf? Fighting!! You name it; if someone likes it, there's a form of entertainment which will be produced about it. But because it involves sex, a rather basic and extremely universal pleasure in the animal world, we have to say "oh no..."
What we fear, dislike or disapprove of about sex has more to do with religious and social values than anything else. Remove those from the equation and you will see less "forbidden fruit." Suddenly people aren't making unsubstantiated claims like "it harms children!" You know what harms children? Curiosity which isn't managed by adults. Knives, fire, fireworks, guns, heights, roads and streets... sex isn't quite as dangerous as any of those other things and yet somehow we are more concerned over whether or not they know what their 'things' are for than just about anything else.
Brazilian politicians regularly go out in the rural areas and trade free abortions for votes. This is the saintly law abiding system they're protecting.
"case in point pornography is recognized as to be limited to certain class of ages, and various type of media are limited by ages"
That doesn't mean any of this is actually good though.
It's actually wrong, too. We have pornography for 12 year old girls. Go to your local Barnes & Noble and you will find books like Twilight and Fifty Shades of Sucking Huge Werewolf Dong.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Unless you have a time machine to bring you back to 1947 you cannot switch "worlds".
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Although they exist in theory, there is effectively no recourse or legal consequences for libel against a candidate for office. In both civil and criminal contexts libel has such a high burden of proof that libel / slander against a public figure would almost never be sanctioned.
In a private context, you *might* win a civil suit if the facts are egregious enough (ie... I hated my neighbor, so I spread rumors that he molested children which I had no reason to think were true).
There are criminal sanctions for libel / slander, but I can't remember the last time I even heard of one being prosecuted (that wasn't eventually struck down).
IAL (in Brazil) and I work in a Brazilian public prosecutor’s office.
First of all, it is important to notice that Brazilian judges are not regular government employees and are not elected. They take rigorous exams to get the job and, after two years, are judges for life, so they should not feel pressured to please influent people, politicians or corporations to keep their jobs. There are exceptions, like everywhere else, but Brazilian magistrates are usually very intelligent, rational and impartial.
Having said that, I think some of these rulings are excessive and were made by judges that, like a few American judges, don't understand how user generated content sites work.
But there is also the possibility that some of these videos contain false information or offensive personal attacks against candidates that can influence the outcome of an election. The judges analyzed these videos and considered them illegal. They ordered Google to take down the videos, but Google ignored the court order.
Google is not liable for the video itself, Google and its executives are responsible for not complying with court orders. In Brazil, willingly ignoring a court order is a crime, but arrest orders in cases like these are only used as a coercive measure. They want Google to takedown the videos, not punish Google.
Using the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy, I think these cases are more like someone asking the owner of a theater to play the sound of someone shouting fire in multiple events, a judge ordering the owner to stop playing that sound or at least warn the audience in advance, and the owner of the theater ignoring the order, even after being fined. What could be done? Shutting the theater down (shutdown of Youtube) or threatening arresting its owner (Google executive)? Then the court order would probably be respected.
Anyway, I worked in a case against Google Brazil a few months ago (an offensive video against a minor - bullying), and they complied with the court order right away. Maybe there is something special in these cases.
Sorry for my poor English.
There is no censorship going on in theaters. Speech is free. It is perfectly possible to yell "fire!" without someone verifying and checking your words, before you utter them. However, you are excercising your free speech in a way which leads to consequences - after you utter the words. This is not censorship. Censorship is when make it impossible to say something. Like if you shut down youtube. That is censorship because it stops the things not yet being broadcasted.
Brazilian judge is censoring youtube because he shuts it down. The appropriate non-censorship behaviour for the brazil judge would be to fine or jail the person shouting fire on youtube.
Brazil’s electoral law has several restrictions on what opponents or critics can air on television and radio about candidates for office — even comedic needling of politicians is banned during electoral season. The Internet’s role in these cases, until now, was not legally explored, as the government does not license the internet and was considered by most exempt from the law.
I think it harms adults.
I'm in my 30s, been married a year, didn't have sex before that. I watched pornography all the time, masturbating around 1x/day. When I got married and had sex, I found that it took forever to orgasm... 1-1.5 hours if I even orgasmed at all... actual sex wasn't as exciting as flipping through a variety of pornography. I had also trained my body and mind that sex was all about me and my pleasure and so the effort I'd spend pleasuring my wife would actually distract me from my orgasm. Not only that, but I had expectations about how sex would be and how I would feel based on porn, and real sex is rather different.
Even now, a year later, and generally quitting pornography, I still can't orgasm to my wife's hand or mouth, even if it's been a week since I last orgasmed and we spend an hour or more, but at least I'm down to where if I go a few days between orgasm, I can orgasm in 15-20 minutes during intercourse.
And that's just looking at myself. My struggle makes my wife really question herself and how attracted I am to her and how capable she is at pleasuring me. She would endure pain (up to 7+ on her pain scale and she's pretty tough) as sex went on trying to make it until I could orgasm. And the times when I couldn't orgasm and she couldn't take it any more would just be devastating to her as I wouldn't be satisfied but she had given so much. And if we were to have watched porn together and if I orgasm more readily doing it (I probably would) she would further feel hit to her self esteem that porn can get me off so much easier and that she's not as attractive as the porn actress(es) (she's quite hot -- and no, you don't get pics).
I'm guessing not all porn users have the same story... in fact I've heard it's often the reverse... that guys orgasm in 1 minute due to training their body during fast masturbation to get it done ASAP.
But at the end of the day, there's no way I can say porn is good. It definitely does damage over time to both sides of a long-term relationship. You're training yourself that your greatest pleasure comes from yourself and that will lead to a lonely life. But hey, we have computers and porn!
We are following Venezuela's example. The US is in a different path. Both paths lead to poverty and tirany, that's right, but they are different.
Rethinking email
I think that might be because your wife doesn't excite you. Consider boys or animals. Seriously. Be honest with yourself about what excites you.
I have the opposite experience, personally... When my wife makes herself available to me in a pleasant way, things go pretty well... way better.
I am absolutely disgusted by all the servile little people defending Brazil. I hope this a case of M$ astroturfers attacking Google whenever possible, and that the majority of slashdotters do actually value meaningful civil rights, contrary to what the moderation here seems to suggest, and are not just happy to hand them over without a fight. Someone please explain how democracy is at all even possible without the absolute freedom of speech. Why even bother allowing people to vote, if they are not allowed to express their political opinions. ESPECIALLY DURING A FUCKING ELECTION!!! Whats the point of turning up to vote, its just a charade. If you are not allowed to publicly say "dont vote for X, because I think he is a terrible person for reason Y" then you are not allowed to make any meaningful contribution whatsoever your the civil life. Yes this means we have to allow religious fanatics to say, two days before the vote, "Dont vote for Mr. A, because he is a Satanist" during an election campaign, as well as communist nuts to say "Dont vote for Mr. B, he will eat poor babies". The alternative is simply to disenfranchise these groups altogether. And if they are disenfranchised we are all disenfrancised, since everyone has some objectionable beliefs. **Nonobjectionable, nonthreatening beliefs are barely worth having!!**
And for all the little thinkers who question whether people like me really have thought through the consequences of totally supporting free speech: have you turds actually thought through the consequences of stopping it? The worst that happens under free speech is that a few dozen protestors can make noise near a military funeral. Big shit, I can pay that price. The consequences of giving up free speech are that all meaningful responsibilities are ceded to the ruling class. By giving up free speech you are giving up your right to partake in the political processes of your country. This is no exaggeration its the truth. Look at China for fucks sake. I dont give two fucks how fast their economy is growing, I wouldnt life like that for all the tea in China. I actually value being able to rant in public like I am doing now.
So I say good on Google. Fuck all you moral relativists. This is a case where American values and laws are absolutely better than the rest of the world. I say this as an Australian citizen who is opposed to alot of what America does, but the American value of allowing all free speech absolutely under all circumstances is definately something they got 100% right. If you cant express yourself you are an animal, not a human.
All of the things you have mentioned are not censorship, but speech and visual actions which result in consequences. This is not the same as censorship, as you would have to have already put that material out into the world to be deemed in violation. This implies censorship has failed to prevent the dissemination of this material, game over.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
You can yell fire in a theatre, and there is nothing illegal about the speech itself. However, you would be charged with reckless endangerment, or if someone were trampled, manslaughter. Censoring the speech is bad because you cannot know the context before hand. All you can do is base law on actions, not words.
Have you considered maybe taking up drinking?
I mean, have a couple...loosen up man....or at least maybe try stuff, role playing...whatever got you off in pr0n....see if she'll act out with you or something.
You might have to get HER to have a few drinks first too tho....if it is really weird.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Whelp, time to bust out my narwhal outfit, platform shoes and monocle every time I hit the bars.
Great ice breakers at least.
We are following Venezuela's example. The US is in a different path. Both paths lead to poverty and tirany, that's right, but they are different.
The path for the US may be different, but the ultimate destination is nearly identical. Here in the US, they know it will take collapsing the economy and creating widespread social collapse, food shortages, and chaos before US citizens will cry out for and accept a strongman to save them from the anarchy, starvation, and chaos.
The end will be the same. Tyranny and despotism, possibly a semi-fascist/socialist/communist mashup in the US with some of the worst features of each. I just hope that in the desperate months and years ahead, US citizens resist the siren-call of the "quick fixes" in exchange for "temporary control" that will be offered by those wanting to use the opportunity to permanently seize total power. Never let a serious crisis go to waste.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Everyone on Earth doesn't agree with everyone else. We are different peoples with different histories, cultures and different backgrounds. This has lead to different local laws.
This is a good thing.
I don't know the laws of Brazil, but if a Brazilian judge says that Google.br should block access too certain content, fine. That doesn't mean that google.com or google.co.uk should block those files. Calling for the arrest of company leadership without reasonable effort to contact them and explain the "court order" is wrong in any locality. If it is a true emergency, then the court should ask the executive branch to dispatch some military to ensure the order is enacted as quickly as feasible.
I find it hard to believe that blocking all of google.br is the only way to accomplish the results. This is a judge being improperly advised.
When your loved one get killed in a stampede in a cinema, because some asshat falsely yelled "fire fire ! run away fire !", and you ask for them to be criminaly punished, I will laugh at your face. Oh and could you give us your address ? We would like to go to yours hours, neighbors, and family, and tell them how much a child porn producer you are. And when you scream libel, lies , we will again laugh at your face.
So, people don't watch Google in thin air. Didn't an ISP provide the video. Why arbitrarily go after Google and not the service provider. Before someone states that laws in Brazil (such as the US) protect the ISP, I would say the law is then arbitrary.
Knives, fire, fireworks, guns, heights, roads and streets... sex isn't quite as dangerous as any of those other things
I'd say unprotected sex can easily be more dangerous than any of the things you mention. Kids born to parents who aren't ready are often in for a lifetime of pain, a pain that often perpetuates itself for generations, and a pain that extends outward to affect many other people besides.
However, you would be charged with reckless endangerment, or if someone were trampled, manslaughter.
That is a limitation on your speech rights. If you didn't say it, you wouldn't have gotten punished. They actually take into account the content of your speech.
As for manslaughter... I cannot believe they'd blame you for the actions of your gullible, gullible listeners. Throw the distraction out of the theater? Okay. Blame him for other people's actions? Absolutely not.
I mean, they used this same reasoning to arrest people who opposed a war in the past. Dangerous stuff.
And I'll add in some of my experience which actually circles back somewhat to the original topic.
My wife is Brazilian (see!)...I am in my mid 40s...I and my wife have been watching porn for as long as I could get hard (back then was in printed magazines). We both watch each alone and together as well.
And guess what? We still have great sex, I have no problem ejaculating, fast if I want to...or taking longer if she wants a longer experience. And after these years, we are still very active...worse weeks are twice...average is 3-4 times. And I can still go double within an hour...and do occasionally just to verify that I can still do it!
I have to admit, I do have the perfect wife! Actually I suggest to most north american should marry a brazilian woman instead of the boring women in N.A....but that's another topic altogether!
So, I dont believe porn is a reason to not be able to sexually active with a partner.
Good health and mental state are key. Your story suggests you would have a good future in the porn industry. Look into it. Lots of money in it for men who can perform... turns out, women can fake anything but men can fake nothing.
I'm confused. I didn't think Brazil was such a backwards freedom snubbing dump?
You teach children to use the tools necessary for life. Knives, cars and all... you don't hide any of these things from children and act like they don't exist "until they are old enough." You see things from a particular perspective without realizing you're actually applying a moral standard which is not quite universal. Why treat one like it's bad/evil and the other like it simply needs to be handled carefully and with respect?
...I guess they'll have to resort to that completely ineffective method of "talking" to spread garbage or convincing arguments.
That could never work. :)
</sarcasm>
If you're Google and have to deal with BS like this, take it a step further and just shut off access to all google services in Brazil until the government gives in. All those politicians have to go home and listen to their kids whine about how they can't watch honey boo boo on youtube, I give it a day until Brazil backs down.