In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there are important, interesting or just plain weird things happening out there and a group of people can find these better than one.
I thought I would test with a thread for linking general news articles about "other news" and discussion. Perhaps it goes into the abyss that is page 2 and beyond, but it is worth a try.
Some guidelines:
- Try to find the "clean link", so that links to the news site directly and not a social media site. Avoid "amp-links" (google).
- Write some cliff notes on what it is about, especially if it is a video.
- It's not an excuse to make outlandish claims via proxy or link extremist content.
- If it's an editorial or opinion piece, it is polite to mark it as such.
- Note the language if it is not in English.
- There is no demand that such things be posted here, if you think a piece merits its own thread, then make one.
That’s how you believe it should work but every countries are allowed to vote laws as they see fit aren’t they ?
That is called freedom of deciding for themselves .
If you don’t agree with the laws, something the right love to say , well you just have to leave then …
sure within their constitution limits, but here there is no law being applied just the random unappealable will of an unlected judge, do you understand that part yes?
if you don't want to be a banana country you can't do that, that is the point.
A few media outlet cited the rule as justified because the companies are "the same group" (ie apparently the crazy judge claimed that in the order).
They aren't a common law country precedent matters very little, it's about statutory power or lack thereof.
Detail is that the Mussolini guy is just stretching what the supreme court can do and there is no official recourse inside the system.
There is "political recourse" in the sense of the executive or the legislative body can start making noise then
This was true up to 2015, but apparently Brazil has adopted some common law including using precedence.
LIVRO III
DOS PROCESSOS NOS TRIBUNAIS E DOS MEIOS DE IMPUGNAÇÃO DAS DECISÕES JUDICIAIS
TÍTULO I
DA ORDEM DOS PROCESSOS E DOS PROCESSOS DE COMPETÊNCIA ORIGINÁRIA DOS TRIBUNAIS
CAPÍTULO I
DISPOSIÇÕES GERAIS
Art. 926. Os tribunais devem uniformizar sua jurisprudência e mantê-la estável, íntegra e coerente.
§ 1º Na forma estabelecida e segundo os pressupostos fixados no regimento interno, os tribunais editarão enunciados de súmula correspondentes a sua jurisprudência dominante.
§ 2º Ao editar enunciados de súmula, os tribunais devem ater-se às circunstâncias fáticas dos precedentes que motivaram sua criação.
Art. 927. Os juízes e os tribunais observarão:
I - as decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal em controle concentrado de constitucionalidade;
II - os enunciados de súmula vinculante;
III - os acórdãos em incidente de assunção de competência ou de resolução de demandas repetitivas e em julgamento de recursos extraordinário e especial repetitivos;
IV - os enunciados das súmulas do Supremo Tribunal Federal em matéria constitucional e do Superior Tribunal de Justiça em matéria infraconstitucional;
V - a orientação do plenário ou do órgão especial aos quais estiverem vinculados.
§ 1º Os juízes e os tribunais observarão o disposto no art. 10 e no art. 489, § 1º , quando decidirem com fundamento neste artigo.
§ 2º A alteração de tese jurídica adotada em enunciado de súmula ou em julgamento de casos repetitivos poderá ser precedida de audiências públicas e da participação de pessoas, órgãos ou entidades que possam contribuir para a rediscussão da tese.
§ 3º Na hipótese de alteração de jurisprudência dominante do Supremo Tribunal Federal e dos tribunais superiores ou daquela oriunda de julgamento de casos repetitivos, pode haver modulação dos efeitos da alteração no interesse social e no da segurança jurídica.
§ 4º A modificação de enunciado de súmula, de jurisprudência pacificada ou de tese adotada em julgamento de casos repetitivos observará a necessidade de fundamentação adequada e específica, considerando os princípios da segurança jurídica, da proteção da confiança e da isonomia.
§ 5º Os tribunais darão publicidade a seus precedentes, organizando-os por questão jurídica decidida e divulgando-os, preferencialmente, na rede mundial de computadores.
Art. 928. Para os fins deste Código, considera-se julgamento de casos repetitivos a decisão proferida em:
I - incidente de resolução de demandas repetitivas;
II - recursos especial e extraordinário repetitivos.
Parágrafo único. O julgamento de casos repetitivos tem por objeto questão de direito material ou processual.
Honestly I'm not even sure what it would mean to not use precedence, laws are always attempted to be interpreted in a uniform way across time. Sure the finer points of precedence might not be there, but that doesn't mean courts don't look at past interpretations to use future interpretations. But maybe I'm just cucked and commonlawpilled.
It does look like this guy is a pretty controversial figure though, I will give you that. I'm just not sure if maybe there are some reasonings that he's using that are justified by law. Is it a common practice for them to demand a legal representative for a company/corporation? Is it a common practice for them to freeze the assets of one business for the debts of another?
This was true up to 2015, but apparently Brazil has adopted some common law including using precedence.
Honestly I'm not even sure what it would mean to not use precedence, laws are always attempted to be interpreted in a uniform way across time. Sure the finer points of precedence might not be there, but that doesn't mean courts don't look at past interpretations to use future interpretations. But maybe I'm just cucked and commonlawpilled.
It does look like this guy is a pretty controversial figu
The legal representation requirement isn't absurd, they did it for telegram in 2022, the previous threat of arrest of the legal representatives was though.
But again the insane part(s) of the order is the freezing or ALL TRANSACTIONS for STARLINK (they can't even receive payments), and now the ban for all VPNs in all app stores.
Keep in mind this are just unappelleable judicial orders, he orders that and there is no check, no balance, how can this be legal lol.
Not sure where you think precedent would matter (or not) here, he just orders the **** he wants.
It's not even clear why he has jurisdiction, these aren't constitutional issues, why aren't normal district level judges issuing the orders, which are then managed within the system as normal?
Keep in mind Brasil has the Italian/french model of 2 distinct supreme court, one for constitutional issues and states/local power attribution issues, and the other one for almost everything else.
The Mussolini judge is the chief justice of the supreme constitutional court.
This is like if Roberts went rogue and started issuing fines against TikTok or something like that, with Biden saying that's absolutely fine
How does a society keep healthy eating habits?
By lashing out even with political representatives against bastardization of good food
https://www.wantedinrome.com/news/italy-...
The carbonara can on sale by Heinz (in the UK, not even here) became the target of almost universal attacks and mockery.
A deep pride in your national culture is needed though
Pretentious twaddle - the libertarianism-for-me-fascism-for-thou poster seeks to attack people for their choice of food.
No one's forcing anyone to eat it afaik.
Pretentious twaddle - the libertarianism-for-me-fascism-for-thou poster seeks to attack people for their choice of food.
No one's forcing anyone to eat it afaik.
And we aren't answering by asking to ban it either.
But i understand you can't even fathom being strongly against something, and being vocal about it, without any intention to ban it.
You need to be constantly on guard about freedom being misused WITHOUT banning options with the violence of the state, which doesn't mean you have to lay in silence every time horrible things happen because people are bad at using their freedom.
Anyway, this is you want a world-reknown food culture and one of the best social health in the world even when paying very little per person in a very bad public health system
And we aren't answering by asking to ban it either.
But i understand you can't even fathom being strongly against something, and being vocal about it, without any intention to ban it.
You need to be constantly on guard about freedom being misused WITHOUT banning options with the violence of the state, which doesn't mean you have to lay in silence every time horrible things happen because people are bad at using their freedom.
Anyway, this is you want a world-reknown food culture and one of the best
Do you support pineapple on pizza?
It's all about the anchovy... yes serious.
I'm sure we can all agree American pizza is far superior to that soggy Italian stuff you need to eat with a fork and knife.
As a substitute of tomato, and properly prepared to remove all acidity it is not terrible.
"hawaii" style pizza is absolutely obscene though (the "ham" on it is some toxic poison as well)
Pesto and mozz is a damn fine combo.
But my insides are practically made out of marinara 😀
Pineapple and bacon(not that freaky ham version) is potentially do-able but rarely.
I actually wonder if the authoritarian left in Brazil will allow free elections moving forward, or if they are just going to go the Erdogan/Maduro route. History has shown, that in the 3rd world especially, once a political party starts going the authoritarian route they dont normally stop until democracy itself has been destroyed.
I don’t remember problem with the elections when Lula was president before ?
I actually wonder if the authoritarian left in Brazil will allow free elections moving forward, or if they are just going to go the Erdogan/Maduro route. History has shown, that in the 3rd world especially, once a political party starts going the authoritarian route they dont normally stop until democracy itself has been destroyed.
The last election there was a Jan 6 style riot that tried to overturn the election for Bolsonaro that he encouraged with his lies. Maybe he should have thought about the damage he was doing to Brazilian democracy before he went full Trump.
The last election there was a Jan 6 style riot that tried to overturn the election for Bolsonaro that he encouraged with his lies. Maybe he should have thought about the damage he was doing to Brazilian democracy before he went full Trump.
No, there was no trying to overturn the election moment, Brasil doesn't have the american insane thing of voting then you wait months to install new leaders.
Brasil like almost every country in the world has the incumbent losing his job on election day
Pesto and mozz is a damn fine combo.
But my insides are practically made out of marinara 😀
Pineapple and bacon(not that freaky ham version) is potentially do-able but rarely.
Pesto isn't good on pizza because pesto needs to be heated a little with the pasta and it doesn't work if you put it on pizza, while if you cook it in the oven it's even worse.
You can't control-heat the pesto on the pizza which is why we never put it
This is a good pizza
No, there was no trying to overturn the election moment, Brasil doesn't have the american insane thing of voting then you wait months to install new leaders.
Brasil like almost every country in the world has the incumbent losing his job on election day
They had a runoff election that Bolsonaro was claiming would be rigged and his supporters organized a violent insurrection hoping the military would coup the elected government. You’re right it was probably worse than J6 if anything.
It means that regulation is coming. I sp[eak specifically of the Europe including the UK
If the companies dont behave then they will be fined. That will work but if we somehow imagine they ignore the rules and dont pay the fines/etc then ISPs and/or browsers etc will be required to bar them.
We're not going to continue to allow anything goes. It's too important. It wont be perfect but for all their kicking and screaming the twitters of this world will more or less follow the rules or they will **** off and lose out to worldwide alternatives
It means that regulation is coming. I sp[eak specifically of the Europe including the UK
If the companies dont behave then they will be fined. That will work but if we somehow imagine they ignore the rules and dont pay the fines/etc then ISPs and/or browsers etc will be required to bar them.
We're not going to continue to allow anything goes. It's too important. It wont be perfect but for all their kicking and screaming the twitters of this world will more or less follow the rules or they will ***
There are already regulations in all EU countries, and some EU-wide regulations. Not sure why you think "anything goes" was ever allowed.
When content is criminal and a social media company gets notified they have to take it down, and it already occurs regularly. It occurs even in the 1a homeland, for pedopornography, terrorist training and so on.
What you might be implying i guess is that you want a lot more content to become illegal. And what's not obvious is who has jurisdiction in various situations. Can a country force you to ban content that is not illegal in other countries? if yes why? if no why not?
The regulation is new and developing.
We have jurisdiction. Yes we can and ban (or impose harsh penalties) for content allowed in other countries - that is what I just posted about.
The regulation is new and developing.
We have jurisdiction. Yes we can and ban (or impose harsh penalties) for content allowed in other countries - that is what I just posted about.
So if the government of India asks facebook to remove all maps of the Kashmir borders which don't align with the official indian border even when posted by people in the UK or elsewhere outside india, you are saying facebook should comply?
Because that's a rule about illegal content in India right now.
You think you have jurisdiction on all content that can be seen by people in the UK, even if hosted in another country and generated by people in other countries? why? does it apply specularly for all other countries in the world for content generated in the UK and/or hosted in the UK?
I mean i don't believe you want Hungary to be able to fine british companies if they "promote LGBT values" do you?
We have the new act that came into force late last year on online safety. No doubt will change a lot but here is an outline of what is p'anned for next yeat
Here we look at the main areas covered by the new laws, which are expected to come into force in the UK in 2025.
Ofcom
The biggest chunk of the Online Safety Act relates to Ofcom, giving the regulator beefy new powers to tame social networks in particular. The act focuses on “category one user-to-user services” – the biggest platforms on the internet that host user-generated content – and gives them a host of new duties and responsibilities. They must, for instance, “protect news publisher content”, giving newspapers and broadcasters special notice before moderating their material, and must similarly protect “the free expression of content of democratic importance” by including provisions in their terms of service that are designed to take that principle into account.
But those requirements are filtered through Ofcom. The legislation is set up to prevent the regulator having to act on individual pieces of content. Instead, Ofcom is supposed to focus on the rules the platforms themselves set, and monitor whether they are doing what they say they will. In theory, this means a platform that wants to be minimally censorious can be, provided it doesn’t give users a false sense of security by claiming otherwise.
For the time being, though, those powers are purely notional. Ofcom still needs to publish its own codes of practice and guidance, later this year, before regulated services can even begin to be held to account for their platforms. Even then, they will have three months to assess the risk of illegal content before being required to act.
Terrorism and child abuse
Ofcom also gets new powers to deal with online content that is already illegal. The regulator can now issue notices requiring companies to proactively respond to terrorist content and child sexual exploitation and abuse (CSEA) content. Those notices can require regulated services to use “accredited technology” to find and remove such content, or to actively develop or source it themselves.
Those clauses have been controversial, since messaging services such as WhatsApp worry they could require them to effectively disable end-to-end encryption, or to enable so-called “client-side scanning”, where AI tools running on users’ phones would monitor their communications.
Again, however, the powers will not come into effect until after Ofcom has published guidance and consulted the information commissioner.
Offensive communications
Not every aspect of the new act involves Ofcom. The act also created new communications offences, giving the police direct powers to take action against speech online. Two were directly intended to replace the old offence of malicious communications, a very broad law that covered almost any use of a communications system to cause distress. The new laws are much narrower, and make it an offence to send false or threatening communications with the intent “to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience”.
Other offences are wholly new. The act makes it a crime to “encourage or assist” serious self-harm. It will also be a crime to deliberately send flashing images with the intent of triggering an epileptic fit, either in a known person or in the community at large.
Sexual offences
The act introduces new clauses into the Sexual Offences Act, to ban so-called “revenge porn”, or non-consensual explicit imagery, and cyberflashing. Each offence can now lead to a jail sentence of up to two years.
Notably, the nonconsensual explicit imagery ban is forward-looking enough to cover many instances of deepfake pornography – AI-generated explicit imagery. It covers images that merely “appear” to be a photograph showing another person in an intimate state.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/...
We can argue the details and trhe rights and wrongs of it. But it is coming and will continue to develop.
