←back to thread

420 points rvz | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
Adrian_Ferreira ◴[] No.41414410[source]
I'm from Brazil and this judge is totally out of control. I agree that X needs to have a legal representative in Brazil, this is correct anywhere, but he threatened a fine of 200k and imprisonment to the person Musk appointed as representative if his stricture orders were not complied with. He threatened us to pay $9k in fines per day if we use VPN to access X. Unless you are part of the government base, it is difficult to find someone who approves of his actions.
replies(7): >>41414425 #>>41414535 #>>41415073 #>>41415211 #>>41417518 #>>41417551 #>>41417842 #
jimbob45 ◴[] No.41414535[source]
Do you not have some sort of expedited appeals process in Brazil to short circuit maverick judges like this?
replies(2): >>41415495 #>>41417857 #
bobbruno ◴[] No.41415495[source]
This is a Justice from the brazilian Supreme Court, they are the highest position in the court system, and allowed to make individual rulings and apply sanctions like this.

These decisions hold until ratified or rejected by the court as a whole (which they all eventually will, but it's not fast) or successfully appealed. Appeals can be made only to another Justice or to the court as a whole - no expedited process, because there's no higher authority.

Besides, who'd make the appeal? X has no representation in Brazil (that's why it's been suspended), and there seems to be consensus on that specific point, of legal representation being a requirement by law, so the general attorney or other officials will not question the main decision.

The side decisions are a different matter, that about VPN apps and app stores had been withdrawn. The fine for accessing X is more controversial: hardly enforceable (for just browsing, at least), ongoing hot debate in the country about it being within the Justice's power.

In fact, the Court will probably expedite a whole court judgement on that, and apparently there's no consensus across the Justices on that.

replies(1): >>41417158 #
1. ◴[] No.41417158[source]