I'm pretty close to a free speech absolutist and I have concerns about Brazil's free speech protections but the reasoning here has little resemblance to legal scholarship and is dangerously close to crackpottery. If the conclusion is correct it should be supported by citations to well regarded Brazilian legal scholars not an amateur analysis of two aspects of Brazilian law without any supporting caselaw.
Even seemingly simple laws often are formulated against interpretational principles and norms and assuming you know what (a foreign language) law must mean absent any precedent, norms of construction or context is how sovereign citizens get into trouble. And, even when a court does make a mistake, every functioning legal system demands appeals via the normal process and harshly punishes outright refusal.
And I don't even see a facial argument that this judge isn't applying Brazilian law correctly. Yah it's speech and the court ordered some of it (seemingly pretty specifically) to be taken down but different countries understand free speech guarantees to cover different things and no one prevents judges from ordering any takedowns (copyright, defamation, blackmail etc) so why assume the judge in Brazil isn't correctly applying Brazilian law?
To be clear, maybe we should call for Brazil to have different laws but my point is just that the weak cites to a few laws plus Musk's assertion it violates Brazilian law isn't convincing nor explain why he can't count on the ruling being overturned on appeal.
The letter is "Against Censorship and Its Academic Supporters", if one finds censorship objectionable then it is reasonable to object to censorship even when the censorship is legal. If the law is not being applied correctly then it is objectionable in every way. It is highly likely X/Twitter's behaviour in Brazil is intended to comply with the law and is guided by professionals rather than "amateurs", although I have to say the idea that citizens cannot know what laws mean is completely absurd and obviously disproved by people obeying them.
The letter is written by Luciano de Castro, I know nothing about him but I have a gut feeling that somehow he might know what this "foreign language" law means and the context around it.
Citizens generally learn what the law prevents not by reading it themselves and guessing but by looking at what courts have ruled and summaries thereof. That's how I know that lethal self-defense is legal even though many of the laws against violence don't even mention it (because it's an interpretational principle that judges read in a necessity defense).
And if the letter merely critisized the state of Brazilian free speech laws fine and if it said that those laws are so bad it's better if X pulls out of Brazil I'd be willing to listen. But it defends Musk ignoring the apparently procedurally valid demands of a Brazilian court of law **as a matter of Brazilian law**.
And unless one has a good argument that the courts in a country are fundamentally illegitimate (eg Russia) we think one usually that the correct response to a valid court order is to comply unless it is so clearly beyond the normal functioning of those institutions as to be fundamentally illegitimate. That's why we expect both political parties in the us to obey SCOTUS deciscions they deeply disagree with.
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.
Digital sovereignty is what North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have. Apparently everyone else is now jealous and wants their own digital sovereignty. Time to stop worrying and learn to love "free speech with Chinese characteristics".
I lean left (relative to most Caplan readers) and am completely opposed, on principle, to recent moves by governments to crack down on social media. Nor do I think that platforms owe it to society to crack down on objectionable content. The political polarization here is baffling and incomprehensible to me. My position was orthodox on the left prior to the election of Donald Trump, and is still the position the left usually takes with printed media. I don’t see why opposing right-wing populist politics should be a package deal with supporting censorship, or why supporting free speech should commit to me to other parts of the MAGA agenda.
I am reluctant to embrace Musk as a free speech champion though. He seems to only denounce censorship when it comes from the left, while supporting censorship from the right (ie on protests of national symbols). He also acquiesces to a lot of censorship laws elsewhere—if he’s going to take on Brazil, why not India or China? The left is never going to see the light on free speech if they can just point to right wing hypocrisy (which is plentiful).
You do not need to embrace Musk wholeheartedly to be with him on this point and against the Brazilian judge who is clearly just in bed with an authoritarian leader.
Agreed on this point! I think I’m one of the few people to agree with both Musk (well, as far as his *stated* views on free speech) and the Ivy League presidents that got canned (their support of free speech for Gaza protestors, not their earlier support of cancel culture). I’d rather side with someone who inconsistently supports free speech than with the censors. But better still for people to be true free speech absolutists (or close to it) in a nonpartisan way.
If they were sincere in their near 180 on free speech, I would agree completely.
Given that the chance of it is close to zero - if Harvard has removed their orientation training that states that misgendering and fatphobia “constitute violence” (I’m not making it up, search for those terms and Bari Weiss and see for yourself), they certainly have not advertised that - the chances they will abandon DEI and become free speech absolutists is near zero, and imo supporting those formerly-elite institutions before they *actually* reform on free speech is entirely unwarranted.
Do you believe it is even possible to continue their DEI social justice mission and become free speech absolutists, or anywhere even remotely close?
Do *you* believe they were sincere in their free speech pronouncements, and their institutions will in fact change?
"if he's going to take on Brazil, why not India or China?"
From what I can tell, he took on "Brazil" here because, as Musk presents it, "Brazil" was violating its own laws when demanding he censor people. I don't know that he believes India or China do the same thing when they demand he censor people.
Agree in spirit, but Elon Musk's X is not the bastion of free speech it's portrayed as here. Musk's is very selective about when he chooses to stand up for free speech.
"Why is Elon so comfy censoring speech in India and Turkey?"
The explicit reason Musk gave for not censoring in Brazil was his understanding that the demands for censorship violated Brazil's own laws. So far as Musk understands it, neither India nor Turkey are violating their laws when they demand censorship. Moreover, Musk is certainly "comfy" censoring speech in China as well - which is the complete opposite of "right wing and align with him politically" (which is why you deliberately left China out of your equation here, since it contradicts your premise).
In other words, Musk's actions in Brazil are quite the opposite of "ideologically motivated" (aka 'right' vs 'left').
I'm pretty close to a free speech absolutist and I have concerns about Brazil's free speech protections but the reasoning here has little resemblance to legal scholarship and is dangerously close to crackpottery. If the conclusion is correct it should be supported by citations to well regarded Brazilian legal scholars not an amateur analysis of two aspects of Brazilian law without any supporting caselaw.
Even seemingly simple laws often are formulated against interpretational principles and norms and assuming you know what (a foreign language) law must mean absent any precedent, norms of construction or context is how sovereign citizens get into trouble. And, even when a court does make a mistake, every functioning legal system demands appeals via the normal process and harshly punishes outright refusal.
And I don't even see a facial argument that this judge isn't applying Brazilian law correctly. Yah it's speech and the court ordered some of it (seemingly pretty specifically) to be taken down but different countries understand free speech guarantees to cover different things and no one prevents judges from ordering any takedowns (copyright, defamation, blackmail etc) so why assume the judge in Brazil isn't correctly applying Brazilian law?
To be clear, maybe we should call for Brazil to have different laws but my point is just that the weak cites to a few laws plus Musk's assertion it violates Brazilian law isn't convincing nor explain why he can't count on the ruling being overturned on appeal.
The letter is "Against Censorship and Its Academic Supporters", if one finds censorship objectionable then it is reasonable to object to censorship even when the censorship is legal. If the law is not being applied correctly then it is objectionable in every way. It is highly likely X/Twitter's behaviour in Brazil is intended to comply with the law and is guided by professionals rather than "amateurs", although I have to say the idea that citizens cannot know what laws mean is completely absurd and obviously disproved by people obeying them.
The letter is written by Luciano de Castro, I know nothing about him but I have a gut feeling that somehow he might know what this "foreign language" law means and the context around it.
Citizens generally learn what the law prevents not by reading it themselves and guessing but by looking at what courts have ruled and summaries thereof. That's how I know that lethal self-defense is legal even though many of the laws against violence don't even mention it (because it's an interpretational principle that judges read in a necessity defense).
And if the letter merely critisized the state of Brazilian free speech laws fine and if it said that those laws are so bad it's better if X pulls out of Brazil I'd be willing to listen. But it defends Musk ignoring the apparently procedurally valid demands of a Brazilian court of law **as a matter of Brazilian law**.
And unless one has a good argument that the courts in a country are fundamentally illegitimate (eg Russia) we think one usually that the correct response to a valid court order is to comply unless it is so clearly beyond the normal functioning of those institutions as to be fundamentally illegitimate. That's why we expect both political parties in the us to obey SCOTUS deciscions they deeply disagree with.
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.
WHAT is "digital sovereignty"? I shudder to think.
I claim MY OWN digital sovereignty. I'm the sovereign here, and so are you.
Digital sovereignty is what North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have. Apparently everyone else is now jealous and wants their own digital sovereignty. Time to stop worrying and learn to love "free speech with Chinese characteristics".
I lean left (relative to most Caplan readers) and am completely opposed, on principle, to recent moves by governments to crack down on social media. Nor do I think that platforms owe it to society to crack down on objectionable content. The political polarization here is baffling and incomprehensible to me. My position was orthodox on the left prior to the election of Donald Trump, and is still the position the left usually takes with printed media. I don’t see why opposing right-wing populist politics should be a package deal with supporting censorship, or why supporting free speech should commit to me to other parts of the MAGA agenda.
I am reluctant to embrace Musk as a free speech champion though. He seems to only denounce censorship when it comes from the left, while supporting censorship from the right (ie on protests of national symbols). He also acquiesces to a lot of censorship laws elsewhere—if he’s going to take on Brazil, why not India or China? The left is never going to see the light on free speech if they can just point to right wing hypocrisy (which is plentiful).
You do not need to embrace Musk wholeheartedly to be with him on this point and against the Brazilian judge who is clearly just in bed with an authoritarian leader.
Agreed on this point! I think I’m one of the few people to agree with both Musk (well, as far as his *stated* views on free speech) and the Ivy League presidents that got canned (their support of free speech for Gaza protestors, not their earlier support of cancel culture). I’d rather side with someone who inconsistently supports free speech than with the censors. But better still for people to be true free speech absolutists (or close to it) in a nonpartisan way.
If they were sincere in their near 180 on free speech, I would agree completely.
Given that the chance of it is close to zero - if Harvard has removed their orientation training that states that misgendering and fatphobia “constitute violence” (I’m not making it up, search for those terms and Bari Weiss and see for yourself), they certainly have not advertised that - the chances they will abandon DEI and become free speech absolutists is near zero, and imo supporting those formerly-elite institutions before they *actually* reform on free speech is entirely unwarranted.
Do you believe it is even possible to continue their DEI social justice mission and become free speech absolutists, or anywhere even remotely close?
Do *you* believe they were sincere in their free speech pronouncements, and their institutions will in fact change?
"if he's going to take on Brazil, why not India or China?"
From what I can tell, he took on "Brazil" here because, as Musk presents it, "Brazil" was violating its own laws when demanding he censor people. I don't know that he believes India or China do the same thing when they demand he censor people.
Agree in spirit, but Elon Musk's X is not the bastion of free speech it's portrayed as here. Musk's is very selective about when he chooses to stand up for free speech.
https://www.thefire.org/news/twitter-no-free-speech-haven-under-elon-musk
Hopefully the letter you signed had more academic signatures than the original.
> those academics who seem undisturbed by authoritarianism, as long as it aligns with their preferred political ideology
Most of whom will be lined up against the wall just the same when the Revolution triumphs.
The “global left” takes care of its own regardless of principles.
Hear, hear!
Is there a link to add one's signature, or contact him directly?
There's an email address at the end of the letter.
👍
Lefpots have taken over academia.
"Why is Elon so comfy censoring speech in India and Turkey?"
The explicit reason Musk gave for not censoring in Brazil was his understanding that the demands for censorship violated Brazil's own laws. So far as Musk understands it, neither India nor Turkey are violating their laws when they demand censorship. Moreover, Musk is certainly "comfy" censoring speech in China as well - which is the complete opposite of "right wing and align with him politically" (which is why you deliberately left China out of your equation here, since it contradicts your premise).
In other words, Musk's actions in Brazil are quite the opposite of "ideologically motivated" (aka 'right' vs 'left').