There is freedom of speech, yes, but the videos probably wouldn't be considered protected speech. AFAIK, there is freedom for opinions (Constitution Art. 5 IV), but not anonymous opinions. I think Youtube would be mad if they tried to claim that their free speech is being violated, because it is not their speech that the videos represent. If it is, then they would be responsible for the damages caused by any video. In this case, Art. 5 X says that privacy, honor and image are untouchable and that damages are due in case of violation. Cicarelli case is probably based on this article.
I think that their better defense would be: we are a tool for publishing videos, but it was not we who posted it and the government cannot mandate that we censor it, because there is another freedom (Art. 5 IX) of intelectual, artistic, scientific or communication expression, which cannot be violated and are independent of censorship or license. Which means, AFAIK, that the judge couldn't have punished youtube for not censoring videos, since censorship is completely forbidden.
Interestingly, since you mentioned how unpleasant a judge could make the life of a person, ordering police to appear at 2am, in Brasil, it is forbidden for police to enter on houses during the night because of a court order (Art. 5 XI).
It seems that one of the checks on the lower court decision failed, since it was a state justice that gave that injunction. For that to happen, someone might have appealed the lower court injunction. Then, by what I understand, the higher court justice misunderstood the scope of his decision and ended up granting what the plaintiffs requested: blocking youtube traffic. We will see what happens monday after a weekend of angry phone calls from people affected by this. If I understand it right, the justice might not be pleased at being deceived.
I think it is even possible that someone will request an injunction against that justice so that he will unblock youtube citing public interest. When that justice order the blocking of the youtube video, he mentioned that the video was not in the public interest (even though it generates public interest). But if they blocked everything, it is very hard to argue that no other video on the site carry the public interest. So, I'd bet Brasil Telecom will lift the block on monday and that will be it.
Maybe not for a celebrity video, but they have already ruled that a site couldn't deep link to another site, and another one condemned a guy for pinging a server.
What we lack here is an EFF writing petitions to interfere in cases like that. That's something we will have to work on.
Hey, come on. The couple got an injunction to have it taken down. It could've happened in the US, too. But, as the judge didn't get his order followed to his satisfaction, he wanted to have all of youtube offline until they complied.
Youtube was probably not there to defend itself. It's a default case.
No, it was not a DNS block. Brasil Telecom (serving south, center-west and part of the north) blocked it, probably using route or packet filters against youtube IP addresses.
There was a judge that ordered the video down and the remedy was decided by a justice from a state supreme court. Only it seems that the justice thought that he was ordering only the video down, because it seems he was told that carriers would just have to implement filters, which they are capable of doing (they are). According to an interview he gave, he thinks that those filters would only block that video.
2. Auditing of source code by parties, machines are placed so that no one can view voting, no votes by mail. No votes outside safe voting places. No votes count if they can be traced to individual persons. No physical proof of vote for a certain candidate is allowed.
3. I don't know
4. I don't know.
5. Authorized people (party representatives) can request to access them all the time.
6. Party representatives can have read only access, and may be present when CDs are burned, software is installed, and may see source code, verify hash codes (which were published on the Internet, BTW), etc.
7. currently, none. In the future (and now, in a few places), paper ballots are printed.
8. they have to present their ID card and registration card.
9. People can only vote in the place they were registered to vote in. Identification is mandatory and verified by parties. The number of people who voted in a voting station is known and can be compared to the number of votes cast.
10. one single format is used in every single place.
11. there is only one model of ballots when paper-based elections are made
12. Electronically, the user is informed if he/she undervotes. He cannot overvote. On paper, invalid votes are *not counted*.
13. Seals, party representatives can inspect machines, some are randomly selected for auditing.
14. A paper confirmation is given after he/she votes.
15. With the new printer systems, the user can see his ballot, printed that moment, through an optical system. The ballot cannot be touched.
16. Totals have to match.
17. The system gives a confirmation on-screen and beeps distinctively.
18. Individual voting machines have their totals published (and can be verified by party officials).
Ooops. You are right. All the numbers I gave were wrong, but those came from the top of my mind. Actual numbers are: 25,500 on 928,000 voters (2,7%).
On Sao Paulo election, the difference between second and third-place was 7,700 on 7,130,000 votes (0,11%).
Slashdot Mirror
First, IANAL, so take this with a grain of sugar.
There is freedom of speech, yes, but the videos probably wouldn't be considered protected speech. AFAIK, there is freedom for opinions (Constitution Art. 5 IV), but not anonymous opinions. I think Youtube would be mad if they tried to claim that their free speech is being violated, because it is not their speech that the videos represent. If it is, then they would be responsible for the damages caused by any video. In this case, Art. 5 X says that privacy, honor and image are untouchable and that damages are due in case of violation. Cicarelli case is probably based on this article.
I think that their better defense would be: we are a tool for publishing videos, but it was not we who posted it and the government cannot mandate that we censor it, because there is another freedom (Art. 5 IX) of intelectual, artistic, scientific or communication expression, which cannot be violated and are independent of censorship or license. Which means, AFAIK, that the judge couldn't have punished youtube for not censoring videos, since censorship is completely forbidden.
Interestingly, since you mentioned how unpleasant a judge could make the life of a person, ordering police to appear at 2am, in Brasil, it is forbidden for police to enter on houses during the night because of a court order (Art. 5 XI).
It seems that one of the checks on the lower court decision failed, since it was a state justice that gave that injunction. For that to happen, someone might have appealed the lower court injunction. Then, by what I understand, the higher court justice misunderstood the scope of his decision and ended up granting what the plaintiffs requested: blocking youtube traffic. We will see what happens monday after a weekend of angry phone calls from people affected by this. If I understand it right, the justice might not be pleased at being deceived.
I think it is even possible that someone will request an injunction against that justice so that he will unblock youtube citing public interest. When that justice order the blocking of the youtube video, he mentioned that the video was not in the public interest (even though it generates public interest). But if they blocked everything, it is very hard to argue that no other video on the site carry the public interest. So, I'd bet Brasil Telecom will lift the block on monday and that will be it.
Maybe not for a celebrity video, but they have already ruled that a site couldn't deep link to another site, and another one condemned a guy for pinging a server.
What we lack here is an EFF writing petitions to interfere in cases like that. That's something we will have to work on.
Big carriers do that all the time. But usually for good reasons. Not this.
It's not DNS. It's packet filtering. The kind used on DDoS attacks.
Hey, come on. The couple got an injunction to have it taken down. It could've happened in the US, too. But, as the judge didn't get his order followed to his satisfaction, he wanted to have all of youtube offline until they complied.
Youtube was probably not there to defend itself. It's a default case.
No, it was not a DNS block. Brasil Telecom (serving south, center-west and part of the north) blocked it, probably using route or packet filters against youtube IP addresses.
There was a judge that ordered the video down and the remedy was decided by a justice from a state supreme court. Only it seems that the justice thought that he was ordering only the video down, because it seems he was told that carriers would just have to implement filters, which they are capable of doing (they are). According to an interview he gave, he thinks that those filters would only block that video.
I wrote about that in my crappy vox blog here.
In Brazil:
1. No record of individual votes is kept.
2. Auditing of source code by parties, machines are placed so that no one can view voting, no votes by mail. No votes outside safe voting places. No votes count if they can be traced to individual persons. No physical proof of vote for a certain candidate is allowed.
3. I don't know
4. I don't know.
5. Authorized people (party representatives) can request to access them all the time.
6. Party representatives can have read only access, and may be present when CDs are burned, software is installed, and may see source code, verify hash codes (which were published on the Internet, BTW), etc.
7. currently, none. In the future (and now, in a few places), paper ballots are printed.
8. they have to present their ID card and registration card.
9. People can only vote in the place they were registered to vote in. Identification is mandatory and verified by parties. The number of people who voted in a voting station is known and can be compared to the number of votes cast.
10. one single format is used in every single place.
11. there is only one model of ballots when paper-based elections are made
12. Electronically, the user is informed if he/she undervotes. He cannot overvote. On paper, invalid votes are *not counted*.
13. Seals, party representatives can inspect machines, some are randomly selected for auditing.
14. A paper confirmation is given after he/she votes.
15. With the new printer systems, the user can see his ballot, printed that moment, through an optical system. The ballot cannot be touched.
16. Totals have to match.
17. The system gives a confirmation on-screen and beeps distinctively.
18. Individual voting machines have their totals published (and can be verified by party officials).
19. Back-up machines in place, trained technicians, back-up batteries, contingency planing.
20. Replacement, substitution by paper voting.
21. Other voting machines are available. Paper ballots are available for manual voting.
22. They receive training. Some workers are trained just to make sure the machines are operarating correctly.
23. A judge declares the machine void. If necessary, votes are discarded. It is replaced or substituted by a traditional ballot box.
There is no word for pregnant chads, since paper voting is by making marks on a piece of paper, not punching cards.
Ooops. You are right. All the numbers I gave were wrong, but those came from the top of my mind. Actual numbers are: 25,500 on 928,000 voters (2,7%). On Sao Paulo election, the difference between second and third-place was 7,700 on 7,130,000 votes (0,11%).