> In a letter from Telegram to Moraes, obtained by CNN Brasil, the company responded asking that the order be reconsidered.
> It points out that Ferreira is an elected official, and says no specific criminal content was identified in the order. “No grounds or justifications were provided for the complete blocking of said channel, that is, the specific contents that would be considered illegal were not presented,” the letter said.
As if a supreme court judge-dictator needs "justification" to do anything.
Credit where credit is due. These types of issues need to be brought to their logical conclusion in a public way. Your insinuating the Supreme Court Justice is a dictator is fine and well, but only by Telegram standing up and fighting this will be become informed. Some people think Brazil is a democracy, and maybe it is, but more like an Iranian Khomenian Democracy.
You're right that it will bring awareness to the issue. There is no fighting this though. He's a supreme court judge, there is no higher court to appeal to. If you disobey, you're fined and your app is blocked in Brazil at the ISP level in retaliation.
5 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 27.3 ms ] thread> It points out that Ferreira is an elected official, and says no specific criminal content was identified in the order. “No grounds or justifications were provided for the complete blocking of said channel, that is, the specific contents that would be considered illegal were not presented,” the letter said.
As if a supreme court judge-dictator needs "justification" to do anything.
Russian censorship machine given up on blocking telegram
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/technology/judge-seeking-...
https://archive.ph/Xe8w5