Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Brazilian Judge Orders 24-hour Shutdown of Google and Youtube

Posted by Unknown on from the internet-replaces-the-airwaves dept.

_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.

12 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. Pre-election laws by Mkaks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Pre-election laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't you mean Google users?

    2. Re:Pre-election laws by Cornwallis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good censorship = censorship. Fuck you.

    3. Re:Pre-election laws by N1AK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm yet to speak to someone who spouts nonsense about all censorship being wrong who actually understands and accepts the consequences that come with it. You'll never talk them round because they've taken an ideological position, without real consideration, so they're not the kind of people who are going to accept a contrary, yet rational, position.

    4. Re:Pre-election laws by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are allowed to do exactly that, no one's stopping you, it's simply that there are consequences, this is not censorship.

      Censorship is the enforced blocking of information, it's the preventing of it even being broadcast which is exactly what's being asked for here.

      If this were the same as punishment for shouting fire in a crowded theatre then the judge would simply fine them for distributing false information or jail the person who posted it for libel etc. This is not what is being done though, this is outright censorship, and yes, it's bad.

    5. Re:Pre-election laws by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Several things here. Google has offices within the local jurisdiction making them culpable for violations of it. Google can likely restrict access to IP's outside the country like they did with that movie trailer thing a week or so ago. We know they have the ability and they have done it already.

      Nothing is to stop you from copying the video and posting it everywhere you can find. The companies that have offices within the country that has local jurisdiction will have to remove it or face the same problems as Google it. The services and companie who do not have local offices can ignore the mandates, law and so on unless they plan on visiting and/or opening local offices up within that jurisdiction in the future. Unless some sort of international treaty with a country they have offices within provides otherwise, Brazil can fine and issue arrest warrant all day long on people not within their jurisdiction and nothing can be done about it outside that unless the companies get within their jurisdiction somehow- invasion, treaty, visiting the country, opening shop within the country and so on..

      Now on to censorship. Please do not confuse the right to free speech with a mandate that someone provide you a platform or stage for that speech. If a company has offices in a country and doing business within that country, they are obliged to follow the local laws of the country. If that means blocking access to a video on their servers or removing it entirely, then they have to do it or suffer the penalties of breaking the laws. Google already censors a lot of stuff voluntarily- Google already complies with local laws in certain area they have offices in. It's not a big deal for them to comply with this.

    6. Re:Pre-election laws by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's the same if CNN of Fox news broadcast this type of stuff during election day (which I assume is illegal in America)

      This is not the case. The US has possibly the strongest protection of freedom of speech in the world, and any such law would be in violation of the constitution.

      But most other countries do consider freedom of speech to be a right that should be balanced with other rights. A fair election being one of them, and the belief that public criticism of a candidate without adequate time for the candidate to address the accusations would violate this right.

    7. Re:Pre-election laws by gwolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right. There are many fundamentally broken things in the USA democracy - Funding and advertising is one of them. Most countries I know of have strict laws regulating who can fund a party, what are the tops for funding - And how can that be spent. Most countries also require a given period (here in Mexico, 72 hours) before the election where no advertising can be made. Campaigning is over, and it should not distract the citizen - This is done in part because of past experiences where i.e. rallies for party X were conducted in areas that would vote for party Y, making it hard for voters to reach the booths.

  2. Re:Brazil can censor this by cheros · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nope. This is (yet again) about a US company trying to pretend that only US law applies as soon as they enter another country. Google is just the most visible example of that, and I support this decision.

    If you want to sell services in a country and generate revenue, you damn well have to follow the local laws there or get fined. Simple.

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  3. Obligatory by Xtense · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 [...]."
  4. That's how you deal with Big Business by captainpanic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:shouting fire by tolkienfan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That argument it stupid.

    The point is that some kinds of speech can incite panic and if done for nefarious purposes should be legally limited because the benefit of such a limit outweighs the harm.

    Claiming that the people who panicked would be at fault is ridiculous: suppose someone yelled "Sarin!" in a room full of biochemists... They would be RIGHT in assuming they were in immediate mortal danger.

    What's the BENEFIT from protecting such speech?