Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmitrygr | Hacker News Reader

There is no such thing as a legitimate shutting-up of someone, among civilized humans. A judge issuing a gag order (or any equivalent of it) is by definition uncivilized, as is any law that allows it, and any people that put up with it. Please read article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

  > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
  > this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
  > interference and to seek, receive and impart information  and
  > ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

Civilized adult humans handle disagreement and anything they find abhorrent with speech and explanations of their own, instead of gagging others. At least they used to, when they existed...

View on HN

But consider article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

Defamation is such an attack, and something has to be done to protect them.

Also consider article 30 "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

The right to free speech shouldn't be interpreted as the right to infringe on the rights of others, including attack upon their honor and reputation.

Hey man you'd be surprised how much they stretch the "honour" part in Brazil.

There have been multiple accounts of comedians, podcasters, and YouTubers being fined or even arrested because of their opinions or jokes. Often these jokes wouldn't even target anyone in particular.

It's batshit crazy.

The Brazilian courts are not gagging or silencing these individuals. They are merely revoking their privilege to access what amounts to broadcast. Access to broadcasting platforms has always been heavily regulated everywhere, and losing access after repeated spread of inflammatory falsehoods is not by any stretch of imagination "shutting someone up".

Come on, read what you just wrote.

Freedom of broadcast? They're not exactly on state-sponsored TV. What does the government have to do with what shows up on social media?

In a country with actual freedom you'd have riots on the street.

Broadcast != state sponsored TV.

Social media is a regulated platform.

In a <blank> you can project whatever fantasy you wish.

You're creating a fantasy. Social media platforms aren't like radio or TV broadcasting and don't require a license to operate.

I sent an article to the NYTimes a few months ago and it hasn’t been printed by them yet.

I’m being oppressed!

> I sent an article to the NYTimes a few months ago and it hasn’t been printed by them yet.

In my reading it is exactly the other way around, no?

You sent something to NYT they published it and now they are not allowed to publish anything from you, and not because what new content is.The ban is because you wrote it.

And if they do publish something you wrote they are criminally negligent.

I'm going to have to disagree here. Deliberate falsehoods are often silenced or censored, particularly if the accusations are very damaging. The USA has slander and libel laws, the UK has similar. I'm positive Brazil has them.

Courts and due process exist to do this silencing.

Except due process wasn't followed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com