Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:50 PM
rachel1 (538 posts)
Court in Sao Paulo orders YouTube to take down anti-Islam film or face $5,000 a day fine
Source: Associated Press
A court in Brazil said it has ordered YouTube to remove clips of the movie that has touched off deadly protests across the Muslim world, the latest in a spate of court-ordered content-removal cases against the video-sharing site here. Sao Paulo-based judge Gilson Delgado Miranda gave the site ten days to remove videos of "Innocence of Muslims," which has raised the ire of many Muslims around the world because of its depiction of the Prophet Mohammed and his followers as thugs. After the 10-day window, YouTube's parent company, Google Inc., will face fines of $5,000 a day for every day the clips remain accessible in Brazil, according to the statement posted on the court's website late on Tuesday. The company did not respond to requests on Wednesday for comment about the case. The ruling adds a legal hurdle to Google's attempts to expand in Brazil. In recent weeks, Brazilian courts have repeatedly ordered the company to remove content from YouTube that was found to violate the country's strict electoral laws, and a judge on Tuesday ordered the arrest of the head of Google's operations in Brazil for failing to remove the offending videos. Read more: http://www.newser.com/article/da1hm0bg2/court-in-sao-paulo-orders-youtube-to-take-down-anti-islam-film-or-face-5000-a-day-fine.html It's a good thing there's at least some justice in this world. Bravo to Judge Gilson Delgado Miranda.
|
37 replies, 2964 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| rachel1 | Sep 2012 | OP | |
| Comrade_McKenzie | Sep 2012 | #1 | |
| Drunken Irishman | Sep 2012 | #2 | |
| alp227 | Sep 2012 | #36 | |
| NICO9000 | Sep 2012 | #3 | |
| dipsydoodle | Sep 2012 | #5 | |
| davidn3600 | Sep 2012 | #14 | |
| dipsydoodle | Sep 2012 | #23 | |
| ProgressiveProfessor | Sep 2012 | #22 | |
| ProgressiveProfessor | Sep 2012 | #6 | |
| dipsydoodle | Sep 2012 | #8 | |
| ProgressiveProfessor | Sep 2012 | #10 | |
| azurnoir | Sep 2012 | #11 | |
| ProgressiveProfessor | Sep 2012 | #19 | |
| azurnoir | Sep 2012 | #21 | |
| ProgressiveProfessor | Sep 2012 | #24 | |
| azurnoir | Sep 2012 | #26 | |
| ProgressiveProfessor | Sep 2012 | #27 | |
| azurnoir | Sep 2012 | #28 | |
| iandhr | Sep 2012 | #4 | |
| frylock | Sep 2012 | #7 | |
| ProgressiveProfessor | Sep 2012 | #20 | |
| Posteritatis | Sep 2012 | #13 | |
| Bocks Car | Sep 2012 | #9 | |
| Stuckinthebush | Sep 2012 | #12 | |
| ashling | Sep 2012 | #35 | |
| oberliner | Sep 2012 | #15 | |
| Comrade Grumpy | Sep 2012 | #16 | |
| oberliner | Sep 2012 | #17 | |
| msongs | Sep 2012 | #18 | |
| Shitty Mitty | Sep 2012 | #25 | |
| Mr.Bill | Sep 2012 | #29 | |
| Codeine | Sep 2012 | #30 | |
| dipsydoodle | Sep 2012 | #31 | |
| azurnoir | Sep 2012 | #32 | |
| ProgressiveProfessor | Sep 2012 | #33 | |
| Socal31 | Sep 2012 | #34 | |
| iamthebandfanman | Sep 2012 | #37 |
Response to rachel1 (Original post)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:55 PM
Comrade_McKenzie (2,526 posts)
1. Are you kidding me? That judge is a disgrace. nt
Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #1)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:57 PM
Drunken Irishman (24,588 posts)
2. For a second there, I thought you were talking to yourself.
Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #1)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:35 PM
alp227 (20,998 posts)
36. From an American POV yes. But Brazilian law is different.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Brazil
In Brazil, according to the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, racism and other forms of race-related hate speech are "imprescriptible crime(s) with no right to bail to its accused". |
Response to rachel1 (Original post)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:58 PM
NICO9000 (970 posts)
3. How do they have jurisdiction to do this?
|
Any DU lawyers in international law here? I'm very curious about this.
|
Response to NICO9000 (Reply #3)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:05 PM
dipsydoodle (33,170 posts)
5. wtf has International law got to do with it.
|
Can't really see Youtube pushing their luck - Brazil could shut them down completely if they wanted to. Your constitution has no merit or meaning outside of the US so don't quote freedom of speech.
|
Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #5)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:57 PM
davidn3600 (1,449 posts)
14. You say our constitution has no power outside the US, yet a Brazil judge has power over the USA?
|
Brazil can block access for people within Brazil. But they have no power over an American company that operates outside of Brazil.
Lets see Brazil try to block google and youtube. Let's see what their population does in response. This ruling is hollow. Courts in other nations have no jurisdiction over American companies that operate outside their borders. |
Response to davidn3600 (Reply #14)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:27 PM
dipsydoodle (33,170 posts)
23. They're not exercisng power over a US company.
|
They're determining what can and cannot be accessed within their own borders.
|
Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #5)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:26 PM
ProgressiveProfessor (22,144 posts)
22. Only within Brazil
|
And the guys at Google could cut off all of Brazil and not even miss them.
|
Response to NICO9000 (Reply #3)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:12 PM
ProgressiveProfessor (22,144 posts)
6. The ban is only in Brazil (on edit, maybe not)
|
Last edited Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:31 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) It would be more interesting if Google cut off all access from a nation's IPs to all of their services. Better still if ISP and transit carriers declined to carry packets from those IPs. All of that is perfectly legal and might get their attention.
On edit: Other sites are claiming this particular order is for international take down. Hard to tell one way or the other right now. |
Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #6)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:22 PM
dipsydoodle (33,170 posts)
8. Google exists
|
largely on advertising revenue. I can just see them wanting to shut that down.
|
Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #8)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:36 PM
ProgressiveProfessor (22,144 posts)
10. Brazil is such a small market that making and example out of them might be a good tactic
|
at negligible financial risk. Unlike some nations what want to cloister themselves, Brazilians will be most upset if they loose access or better yet transit for packets from their IPs
|
Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #6)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:45 PM
azurnoir (27,412 posts)
11. so you would deny Brazil internet access over this interesting
|
especially from one is so in favor of 'free speech'
|
Response to azurnoir (Reply #11)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:14 PM
ProgressiveProfessor (22,144 posts)
19. It would smack the Brazilian government around a bit to keep their crazies in line.
|
I was a very active member in the early spam wars. Spammers were furious when they found out they could be blocked, their ISP would cut them off and as a result they were losing connectivity on a regular basis. All without government action or recourse in the courts. All it took was entries in Spamhaus, SPEWS etc. The Internet runs collaborative on mostly private resources. Its also designed to find ways around disruptions and outages. No one ever said the packets must go through.
We went through some of this earlier with memorabilia auctions and the like. National sovereignty stops at the border. The idiot judge could order the transit carriers in Brazil to block that URL or that server (Youtube). He lacks any standing to fine Youtube or Google. Its not clear if they were even notified or present in court for this farce. If the national government supports him, this can be addressed, without courts or governments. They won't like it and they will have no recourse. At some point the Brazilian government will step in and either shut him down or limit it within their borders. The Internet is mostly privately owned, and there is no authority that required that I accept your packets onto my network. As some spam friendly ISPs have found, its a lot easier to get into the deny tables than out of it. At one point Moldavia was a real Internet pariah. A lot of places have never unblocked them... |
Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #19)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:23 PM
azurnoir (27,412 posts)
21. Singapore has also blocked it, Google voluntarily blocked it Muslim countries
|
and a host of other countries have made the same request would you have them all cut off, or only the poor ones?
|
Response to azurnoir (Reply #21)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:28 PM
ProgressiveProfessor (22,144 posts)
24. I have no problems with local blocking, but I do with international take down orders
|
Most places are describing this as an international take down order, not just domestic. That is the issue.
|
Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #24)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:54 PM
azurnoir (27,412 posts)
26. really considering the Brazilian court only has jurisdiction in Brazil
|
Last edited Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:56 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) the order can not be considered international not to mention any arrest orders only apply to Googles Brazilian head
eta from the snip posted
Google Inc., will face fines of $5,000 a day for every day the clips remain accessible in Brazil, according to the statement posted on the court's website late on Tuesday. |
Response to azurnoir (Reply #26)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:59 PM
ProgressiveProfessor (22,144 posts)
27. Like I said, other sites are carry different content
|
Other countries have also tried long arm bullshit in the past, including the US
|
Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #27)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:02 PM
azurnoir (27,412 posts)
28. Long arm Bullshit? well okay then but really has little to do with your previous post n/t
Response to rachel1 (Original post)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:01 PM
iandhr (2,299 posts)
4. Justice?
|
Youtube is part of google which is an American company.
Congress shall make no law means congress shall make no law. Even bigots have free speech rights. |
Response to iandhr (Reply #4)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:12 PM
frylock (19,372 posts)
7. the us constitution doesn't apply outside of what we refer to as..
|
wait for it... the U.S.
|
Response to frylock (Reply #7)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:21 PM
ProgressiveProfessor (22,144 posts)
20. And a Brazilian court has no authority outside of Brazil's borders
|
It issuing such an order to Google/Youtube is hubris at its best. It could order the URL or server blocked in Brazil by the national transit providers, but that is about it. Youtube/Google/Ebay have all been down this road. They know how to handle it.
The real concern is if the judge continues to play stupid and the net admins decide to act. Its easy to block of Brazil's IP space and there is no way to find out how wide the blockage is or legal recourse to get it unblocked. |
Response to iandhr (Reply #4)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:52 PM
Posteritatis (17,454 posts)
13. I know there's a provincialism problem on this site at times, but goddamn. (nt)
Response to rachel1 (Original post)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:23 PM
Bocks Car (25 posts)
9. I hope Youtube tells them to FOAD.
|
fucking idiot judges
|
Response to rachel1 (Original post)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:47 PM
Stuckinthebush (8,255 posts)
12. Wow
|
Admittedly, the video is awful but if we start taking down all the stuff that someone thinks is awful then we will only have videos of stupid pet tricks.
|
Response to Stuckinthebush (Reply #12)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:55 PM
ashling (19,453 posts)
35. GAWD no!
|
stupid pet tricks are AWFUL!
|
Response to rachel1 (Original post)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:00 PM
oberliner (22,360 posts)
15. Is South Park broadcast in Brazil?
|
Or other TV shows that mock various religions?
|
Response to oberliner (Reply #15)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:04 PM
Comrade Grumpy (3,738 posts)
16. I don't know, but they have different free speech laws from the US
|
Brazilian courts have prosecuted pro-marijuana demonstrators for "apologia for drug use."
|
Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #16)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:08 PM
oberliner (22,360 posts)
17. Interesting
|
I'll have to read up and learn more.
|
Response to rachel1 (Original post)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:13 PM
msongs (30,816 posts)
18. score one for religious bullies - fear based religion strikes again nt
Response to rachel1 (Original post)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:38 PM
Shitty Mitty (138 posts)
25. Justice?
|
|
Response to rachel1 (Original post)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:04 PM
Mr.Bill (980 posts)
29. YouTube probably spends 5K a day
|
on coffee at their corporate headquarters. Chump change.
|
Response to rachel1 (Original post)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:11 PM
Codeine (12,713 posts)
30. Bravo?! More like FUCK THAT!
|
Fuck anti-freedom, authoritarian bullshit.
Fuck people who root for curtailing expression. Fuck the Heckler's Veto. |
Response to rachel1 (Original post)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:22 PM
dipsydoodle (33,170 posts)
31. Everyone seemed to be focused on the rogue video
|
but this is equally important from the OP's link :
"The ruling adds a legal hurdle to Google's attempts to expand in Brazil. In recent weeks, Brazilian courts have repeatedly ordered the company to remove content from YouTube that was found to violate the country's strict electoral laws, and a judge on Tuesday ordered the arrest of the head of Google's operations in Brazil for failing to remove the offending videos." |
Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #31)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:26 PM
azurnoir (27,412 posts)
32. well that has been what is being discussed "freedom of speech" and all
|
Last edited Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:27 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) but certainly I did not miss that part
|
Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #31)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:32 PM
ProgressiveProfessor (22,144 posts)
33. It would seem to be best if Google just abandoned Brazil for the time being
|
A little IP space blocking might also get their attention.
|
Response to rachel1 (Original post)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:56 PM
Socal31 (1,148 posts)
34. Google should just "take it down" for Brazilian IPs.
|
Last edited Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:57 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) All this has done is draw more attention to it for the Brazilian population. And anyone who actually wants to can circumvent regional blocks anyway.
You don't think Chinese citizens find ways around the Great Firewall? |
Response to rachel1 (Original post)
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:24 AM
iamthebandfanman (6,764 posts)
37. Who cares?
|
Its in Brazil guys. They can do whatever they want in their own country.
|

