"Reporters Without Borders' Stance on US-Brazil Policy Undermines Press Freedom"

From Jacob Mchangama (The Bedrock Principle), a leading scholar of free speech history and of international speech restrictions:

Last week, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) issued one of the more remarkable statements I've seen from a group dedicated to press freedom. It criticized the Trump administration for imposing 50% tariffs on Brazil in response to what the U.S. called the Brazilian government and judiciary's "unprecedented actions to tyrannically and arbitrarily coerce U.S. companies to censor political speech."

To be clear, there are fair reasons to question the administration's sincerity and its focus on Brazil. Why, for instance, isn't the U.S. going after Russia, which has long banned U.S. tech companies for spreading "illegal content" and fined Google $360 million in 2022 and $78 million this year for failing to remove "prohibited material"? Meanwhile, the administration's own record on speech and press freedom at home severely undermines its credibility when criticizing wrongdoings abroad.

But these were not RSF's objections. Instead, one of the world's best-known press-freedom organizations effectively endorsed Brazil's approach:

"Using free speech as a pretext for trade sanctions is both cynical and misleading. Freedom of expression does not excuse disinformation, and it is not a shield for corporate influence. Brazil must not back off legitimate regulatory efforts designed to strengthen the right to reliable information and protect democratic debate online. Initiatives to counter disinformation, hate speech, and online harm are essential to protect journalism and democratic debate."

According to RSF, prohibiting "disinformation" is not only legitimate but necessary—and it strengthens, rather than weakens, journalism and democratic debate. That's an unusual stance for a press-freedom group….

Much worth reading in its entirety.

Comments

[Bored Lawyer]

Their censorship: bad.
Our censorship: good.

That sums it up.

[Brett Bellmore]

To paraphrase, not anti-censorship, just on the other side.

[Bob from Ohio]

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is as crazy as their doctor namesake.

[Incunabulum]

At least the doctors occasionally do good.

[Gunstar1]

Anyone that thinks that government should stop disinformation, when government is the leading purveyor of disinformation, is an idiot.

[tkamenick]

I once wrote an Onion/Babylon Bee style headline and shared it on social media that went something like "Forced to Delete Accounts Accused of Spreading Misinformation, Facebook and Twitter Delete 20,000 Government Accounts."

[Riva]

And the media in this country are becoming advocates for crime in opposing President Trump's effort to make DC safer. The common denominator being President Trump. Or in sum, just more TDS.

[hobie]

So you don't like media that reports one way, but not in the other.

[Riva]

No, I don't like politically biased media that reflexively opposes everything President Trump does, even to the extent it runs directly counter to their own professed principles and common sense.

[Lee Moore]

There's an amusing congruence between this RSF enthusiasm for Brasilian censorship, and Prof Adler's reporting of judges disapproving of their colleagues writing dissents.

Some folk just don't like to be contradicted.

[Voize of Reazon]

unprecedented actions to tyrannically and arbitrarily coerce U.S. companies to censor political speech

These sanctions claim to be authorized by the Global Magnitsky Act which reads in relevant part:

The President may impose the sanctions described in subsection (b) with respect to any foreign person the President determines, based on credible evidence—
(1) is responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights committed against individuals in any foreign country who seek—
(A) to expose illegal activity carried out by government officials; or
(B) to obtain, exercise, defend, or promote internationally recognized human rights and freedoms, such as the freedoms of religion, expression, association, and assembly, and the rights to a fair trial and democratic elections;
(2) acted as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign person in a matter relating to an activity described in paragraph (1);
(3) is a government official, or a senior associate of such an official, that is responsible for, or complicit in, ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, acts of significant corruption, including the expropriation of private or public assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, bribery, or the facilitation or transfer of the proceeds of corruption to foreign jurisdictions;
or (4) has materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial,
material, or technological support for, or goods or services in
support of, an activity described in paragraph (3).

Assessing fines against US companies operating in Brazil doesn't constitute torture, extrajudicial killing, or gross violations of human rights of individuals, nor is it an act of significant corruption.

[Lee Moore]

Assessing fines against US companies operating in Brazil doesn't constitute .... an act of significant corruption.

I beg to differ. I don't think you can argue seriously that multi-million dollar fines are other than "significant" so the only remaining question is whether they may be "corrupt."

I think you'd get roughly 50% of the population to agree that the NY judicial system's double shakedown of Trump was "corrupt" notwithstanding that it was effected in the law courts. And I expect you'd get 50% for the proposition that Trump's shakedown of various law firms and universities was "corrupt" - albeit a different 50%.

Corruption doesn't have to be for private gain, as the word "including" in (3) demonstrates.

You might say that the implementation of a law cannot be corrupt, by definition, but again I beg to differ. Laws can be corrupt just as much as private action. Look at the current kerfuffle about gerrymandering. Plenty of folk think gerrymandering is corrupt, even if it's legal.

[KevinP]

You missed this part?

B) to obtain, exercise, defend, or promote internationally recognized human rights and freedoms, such as the freedoms of religion, expression, association, and assembly, and the rights to a fair trial and democratic elections;

[MickeyFitz]

Unfortunately, RSF is an ideological leftwing organization which is only interested in promoting a political movement, not free speech or inquiry. Objective journalism is passé.

[Estragon]

Pretty amazing this guy can write a whole article and not mention the person at the center of all of this:

Jair Bolsonaro

Trump is going to try to do the same thing to the EU, btw.

[Incunabulum]

I do not see why you would find it surprising - the future of the traditional press (and those working in that industry) is dependent on gatekeeping new media. This they're gonna lock the boot because as long as they parrot the government narrative they won't be deemed 'misinformation' and both their competitors get kneecapped and they keep collecting paychecks.

[Malika the Maiz]

I imagine some press think restricting disinformation is good for journalism and democratic debate similarly to how many medical doctors think restricting many pseudoscience medical practices is good for public health and the medical field.

[Michael D]

It helps when one’s medical organization also gets to define pseudoscience and have the government enforce that determination. One always wants to make sure competition is restricted.

[NvEric]

OK, who defines "disinformation" ?
This speaks to the lack of understanding "Brazil’s approach aligns with global democratic debates on platform and big tech regulation," of what free speech is. Freedom scares the shit out of the rest of the World and RSF is another attempt in censorship ! They attack free speech !

This topic is precisely because the bulk of reporting has devolved into misinformation, disinformation and the like.

The World is a dangerous place so long as people are scared of each other, can't accept truth, can't reason clearly, and all the other things which hinder mutual acceptance. In short, it's fear which fucks people up.