The lawsuit brought by Rumble and Trump Media against Brazilian Supreme Court Justice de Moraes is *fascinating* in ways that will need a long thread to unpack. 1/ storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us... - ThreadSky

daphnek.bsky.social • 3 days ago

The lawsuit brought by Rumble and Trump Media against Brazilian Supreme Court Justice de Moraes is *fascinating* in ways that will need a long thread to unpack. 1/

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.438114/gov.uscourts.flmd.438114.1.0.pdf

Comments

leaferi.bsky.social•2 days ago

Military intelligence communications AI tech has speech rights too eh?

That it’s in our business interest to protect, commercially.

leaferi.bsky.social•2 days ago

It is tortured… not exactly logic but more trying to fit the tech and tools of these platforms that are vehicles for speech and communication but hardly just that either into legal framework of pen and paper and it’s real disingenuous to portray such tech as mostly just that.

leaferi.bsky.social•3 days ago

Servers have speech rights.

Mmmkay.

leaferi.bsky.social•3 days ago

How very ominous to be killed in a plane crash when you are investigating and taking down corruption of this kind given recent events and many another thing…

leaferi.bsky.social•3 days ago

It’s speech but also it’s how we conduct hybrid warfare and took down the US and are now trying to the same with Germany and so on…

leaferi.bsky.social•2 days ago

Oh… extra interesting now. Knew missing something important re attempted coup in Brazil. So had the same architects as here (Musk, Trump, Putin, Thiel et al).

leaferi.bsky.social•2 days ago

Why should any other country be able to block our online armies based in India & AI enhanced cyber warfare weaponry that is used to control the local media narrative w/ paid propagandists and local (compromised or asset) politicians & media persons?? It’s just speech.

leaferi.bsky.social•2 days ago

—The protected speech of AI (and no speaker then technically, right or does the first amendment equally protect tech “talk”??) or a paid digital warrior managing 20 phones who is meant reinforce specific messaging as paid but that is still protected “free speech” still, right??

leaferi.bsky.social•2 days ago

Think maybe commercial speech so maybe little less protected but there are people using social media more as most of us tend to think of it being used too and get how defeats their purpose if had to separate but therein is the crux of the “free speech” aggressive defensive phrasing re SM…

tchize.bsky.social•3 days ago

This looks like a very interessing thread but... Damn I don't understand half of the messages, I lack the vocabulary, I have absolutely no idea what is described here except "it's a mess of international lows".
I kinda feel small and humble here :)

daphnek.bsky.social•3 days ago

Sorry, lots of lawyerese here!

daphnek.bsky.social•3 days ago

There is a generally accepted way that divergent national speech laws get enforced on global platforms: by geoblocking, so that users in a specific country can no longer see content.
Rarely, courts order global takedown and interesting conflict ensues. This is that situation on steroids. 2/

daphnek.bsky.social•3 days ago

If platforms don’t comply with court orders, the escalation path is that the Ct threatens to (1) seize assets, (2) arrest employees, and (3) order national ISPs (and these days also app stores) to block the platform.
Plaintiffs here act like that's outrageous coercion, but U.S. Cts do the same. 3/

daphnek.bsky.social•3 days ago

This brief does some normal things: Arguing based on the First Amendment, CDA 230 (yes, the law Trump hates, sigh), and comity.
As is also normal, it asks for a pretty meaningless and performative remedy: a declaration that US authorities can't enforce Moraes's orders. No one was asking them to. 4/

daphnek.bsky.social•3 days ago

By "normal" I mean that similar things happened in a small handful of similar U.S. claims -- Yahoo's France case and Google's Equustek/Canada case.

But there are some things that make the brief novel legally, and some wildly unusual facts. 5/

daphnek.bsky.social•3 days ago

For one thing, there is no real plaintiff or prosecutor in Brazil. Moraes issued the orders unilaterally, effectively acting as prosecutor and judge. The brief argues that this is outside his legal authority under Brazilian law, and hence there is no foreign sovereign immunity. 6/

daphnek.bsky.social•3 days ago

I haven't seen Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act come up in other cases about foreign courts ordering global content removal. It seems like a weird fit for most court orders? But I don't know FSIA law well. 7/

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply