Submitted by Colin Brayton (not verified) on 22 January, 2007 - 17:19.
You are incorrect to state that "the judge reversed himself." You have been disinformed.
As the local legal press here in Brazil reported, the judge who ruled on the case had the scope of his order changed by the administrative law judge who reviewed it. Unduly.
Only 2 of the 5 backbone providers -- Telefonica and Brasil Telecom -- followed the order with the altered wording.
The original judge had clarified the very same day, in a public statement, that his order specifically did NOT entail the blocking of the entire site. He later issued a formal clarification that declared the order as issued by the administrative judge null and void.
And the plenary session of the court finally confirmed the order to block ONLY specific URLs. This is now Brazilian public policy on the issue, I gather, modeled after a similar EU directive.
You are incorrect to state
You are incorrect to state that "the judge reversed himself." You have been disinformed.
As the local legal press here in Brazil reported, the judge who ruled on the case had the scope of his order changed by the administrative law judge who reviewed it. Unduly.
Only 2 of the 5 backbone providers -- Telefonica and Brasil Telecom -- followed the order with the altered wording.
The original judge had clarified the very same day, in a public statement, that his order specifically did NOT entail the blocking of the entire site. He later issued a formal clarification that declared the order as issued by the administrative judge null and void.
And the plenary session of the court finally confirmed the order to block ONLY specific URLs. This is now Brazilian public policy on the issue, I gather, modeled after a similar EU directive.
Have a look.
http://cbrayton.wordpress.com/2007/01/10/what-the-brazilian-judge-who-ch...
http://cbrayton.wordpress.com/2007/01/20/brazilian-blawger-youtube-cases...