The vast, vast, vast majority of people obey the vast, vast, vast majority of laws, this would not happen if it was true that nobody knew what the laws meant until a body of case law had been established. Your views are completely absurd.
The third paragraph of the letter argues that the demands are not legal. It starts with the sentence:…
The vast, vast, vast majority of people obey the vast, vast, vast majority of laws, this would not happen if it was true that nobody knew what the laws meant until a body of case law had been established. Your views are completely absurd.
The third paragraph of the letter argues that the demands are not legal. It starts with the sentence: "Brazil’s law establishes that any judicial order to remove content from a social platform must specify what content is to be removed".
Regardless of the law, it's immoral to assist in politically motivated censorship. Laws and courts are not fundamentally good things in themselves. Some laws can be good, some can be bad.
The vast, vast, vast majority of people obey the vast, vast, vast majority of laws, this would not happen if it was true that nobody knew what the laws meant until a body of case law had been established. Your views are completely absurd.
The third paragraph of the letter argues that the demands are not legal. It starts with the sentence: "Brazil’s law establishes that any judicial order to remove content from a social platform must specify what content is to be removed".
Regardless of the law, it's immoral to assist in politically motivated censorship. Laws and courts are not fundamentally good things in themselves. Some laws can be good, some can be bad.