Reporters Without Borders: BRAZIL: Bloggers banned.

[SealLion]

Again, you'll have to excuse me for the shortened subject title as the true title was too long to fit inside the subject header.

The true title for this thread is:

"Two bloggers banned from criticising politician accused of embezzlement"

Two bloggers in the southwestern state of Mato Grosso,....., were ordered ..... to withdraw all comments from their blogs .... that were “offensive” to José Riva, the president of the Mato Grosso legislative assembly.

This is another issue of freedom of speech and how cases of it are attempted to be silenced.

The judge also told them they could be fined up to 1,000 reais (390 euros) a day if they posted any new criticism of Riva.

So,...is the judge playing favoritism here or something??
I wonder....

Riva is nonetheless a politician who is worthy of comment. The head of a major financial empire and regarded as one of the most powerful people in the state, he is currently the target of more than 100 lawsuits for alleged embezzlement and 17 other actions for alleged criminal association.

So. He's politically and financially powerful. That would make for some ideas that perhaps he's able to afford a judge...possibly.
I can't make any statements that he paid off a judge as the article doesn't make mention of it, but think of it this way:

A. Judges are supposed to be impartial, yes??
B This guy is financially powerful.
C ....Would it be considered impossible for a judge to be paid off??.....you know what I mean??

“This is a serious violation of free expression as the two bloggers just voiced their opinions, which is not a crime,

That's true.
It could be considered a matter of opinion. But why are internet bloggers being told by a judge and threatened with a fine for voicing their opinions??
somethings fishy here....

This kind of censorship above all affects cities in the interior of the country, where there are fewer and less powerful newspapers and where the Internet is one of the few public arenas where people can express their views freely, or at least try to. Court censorship is an effective method of financial pressure, as it is costly for defendants to hire a lawyer in order to appeal. Time passes and the censorship remains

So.
Court ordered censorship is an effective method of financial pressure.

Threaten the bloggers for voicing their opinion with monetary fines b/c they published something about a powerful politician, who's probably gotten too comfortable and powerful and as such, feels that b/c of his powerfulness can do pretty much about anything he want's.

ah,,yes. I get it now.

Here's the link:

Reporters Sans Frontières - Two bloggers banned from criticising politician accused of embezzlement

[slikrapid]

A. Judges are supposed to be impartial, yes??

actually, they are only supposed to make sure everything within their area of responsibility is done according to the currently valid law, no more and no less - they are not there to be impartial to anyone, so if someone is not aware of the legal regulations or consequences, no judge will help them in any way (or at least they are not obligated by the law)

B This guy is financially powerful.

which means he can get top notch legal advice and therefore have a significant advantage as opposed to the bloggers

C ....Would it be considered impossible for a judge to be paid off??.....you know what I mean??

its possible, but may not be necessary if the bloggers aren't able to legally protect their actions (it may be as simple as creating a disclaimer on their blog)


imo we still don't properly understand what the functions of certain country bodies are or what our rights & obligations when interacting with the system are, which makes it easy for those that know how the system works to exploit it (or simply make use of it) to their advantage

check this video to see an example of how one can exercise his rights to protect himself and still be within the legal boundaries of the system

BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA&NR

hmm, can't find the youtube tags, any ideas?

[SealLion]

well, if the bloggers aren't able to afford legal advice and services , that's b/c they're probably just ordinary laymen like you and me.

I mean, how many bloggers do you know that are wealthy enough to afford a $$ 250 dollar-an-hour lawyer??

As for him (the president of the legislative assembly, that is) , he'll probably just settle it his way.

As for a potential disclaimer on the blog site (country dependent, of/c) that might/ maybe/ could be also be disputed).
But that would be unlikely. I would tend to think that disclaimers are pretty much applied in the same way universally.

Even then, it's probably too late for publishing a disclaimer on the blog-site. I would tend to think that any disclaimer (we're not sure if there was one as nothing in the news article states anything about it), would have to be published before the president of the legislative assembly would have gotten upset with them.
Not after.
So if there was no disclaimer ( again, we're not sure), it's obviously too late for that.

IDK....maybe alpacino also has some insight on this.

Even then. I still see it as a case of corruption rife in a world where the best justice comes to those who are in an elevated position.