Brazilian Judge Orders 24-hour Shutdown of Google and Youtube

_Sharp'r_ writes "Judge Flavio Peren of Mato Grosso do Sul state in Brazil has ordered the arrest of the President of Google Brazil, as well as the 24-hour shutdown of Google and Youtube for not removing videos attacking a mayoral candidate. Google is appealing, but has recently also faced ordered fines of $500K/day in Parana and the ordered arrest of another executive in Paraiba in similar cases." Early reports indicated that the judge also ordered the arrest of the Google Brazil President, but the story when this was written is that the police haven't received any such order (and an earlier such order was overuled recently). The video is in violation of their pre-election laws.

Re:Pre-election laws

[Mkaks]

So in your opinion you should be allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater, too?

Re:Pre-election laws

[91degrees]

Yes, but libel laws, prohibitions on death threats, and prohibitions on publishing government secrets are also censorship. Censorship itself is just a label. Calling something that doesn't automatically make it bad.

Re:Obligatory

[Xtense]

We have almost exactly the same laws as Brazil over here in Poland regarding the pre-election period (the so-called "Electorial Silence", where no campaigning is permitted). Since recovering from the USSR, the only thing this law was good for is getting the tv and radio to STFU. Meanwhile, corruption during this period ran rampant - the currently ruling party was almost always running its shady business during this period, while the opposing parties were buying votes and otherwise screwing with the voting process. They were caught multiple times, but due to the law, it was forbidden to report on it during this period.

So no, I don't think this is actually a very good law.

Re:I'll throw my mod point away there is good cens

[erroneus]

Pornography. I'm still not so sure pornography is bad.

We like to watch entertainment of the things we like or are interested in. We watch food shows. No one has a problem with that. We watch beauty contests. No one... okay, 'few' have a problem with that. Olympics? Fishing? Golf? Fighting!! You name it; if someone likes it, there's a form of entertainment which will be produced about it. But because it involves sex, a rather basic and extremely universal pleasure in the animal world, we have to say "oh no..."

What we fear, dislike or disapprove of about sex has more to do with religious and social values than anything else. Remove those from the equation and you will see less "forbidden fruit." Suddenly people aren't making unsubstantiated claims like "it harms children!" You know what harms children? Curiosity which isn't managed by adults. Knives, fire, fireworks, guns, heights, roads and streets... sex isn't quite as dangerous as any of those other things and yet somehow we are more concerned over whether or not they know what their 'things' are for than just about anything else.

Re:World bank disagrees

[gwolf]

The leftists took over in January 2003. Before 2003, Brazil's economy was just average, being the giant poor country. After Lula da Silva's two periods and half of Dilma Roussef's first, Brazil is *the* Latin American giant. Its currency is the strongest in the region, and its GNP growth is unrivalled. So, "punishing success" and this "change in policy" that is yet to show up in economic numbers... I'm sorry, you are somewhat mistaken.

Re:Pre-election laws

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's not the case. Here in Brazil censorship is becoming common when politicians are involved. In 2009 one of the largest newspapers in Brazil was prevented from publishing news about a police operation against the son of the President of the Senate Jose Sarney. His son, Fernando Sarney. His son, Fernando Sarney, investigated for corruption is not politician and 2009 was not a electoral year, but a federal judge blocked the newspaper Estado de Sao Paulo to publish news about the police investigation. http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Faktor

Re:Pre-election laws

[SaroDarksbane]

I'm yet to speak to someone who spouts nonsense about all censorship being wrong who actually understands and accepts the consequences that come with it.

Then let me be the first: There should be no criminal penalties on any speech, information, or data transmitted from anyone, to anyone.

Re:Pre-election laws

[MacGyver2210]

Basically, you're saying you think censorship is valid in some circumstances? Such as what? Anti-muslim hate videos? Electoral accusations? Videos that disagree with the state's point of view?

Who gets to decide these circumstances? The president, the king, you?

Sounds like a dictatorship to me.