There is much more story that you’re either uninformed about or willfully ignoring. The correct move was to remove people from harms way for decisions they have no control over, hence their staff exit from the country.
The threats were themselves due to failing to follow a court order.
I'm not qualified to tell if the judge giving them is a partisan hack or not, just like I can't make that distinction with the judges that Musk appears to shop for in the US with what others describe as SLAPP lawsuits.
But obeying a judge isn't optional in either case.
Musk and his people officially don’t have any control over political decisions taken in any country, be it Brazil, Germany, or even home in the US. And they shouldn’t but by virtue of a ton of money thrown towards politicians, and general US global influence, many times this happens.
So your explanation should be rewritten as “remove people from the way of legal consequences from breaking local laws they/Musk can’t control (buy) in their favor”.
It sounds like the same thing but it’s the difference between fleeing persecution and fleeing prosecution.
ben_w|1 year ago
I'm not qualified to tell if the judge giving them is a partisan hack or not, just like I can't make that distinction with the judges that Musk appears to shop for in the US with what others describe as SLAPP lawsuits.
But obeying a judge isn't optional in either case.
luckylion|1 year ago
To the individual representatives of a company? That's very rare, and not common like you make it sound.
"The company you're representing in this legal process hasn't complied with my orders so I will have you personally arrested".
close04|1 year ago
So your explanation should be rewritten as “remove people from the way of legal consequences from breaking local laws they/Musk can’t control (buy) in their favor”.
It sounds like the same thing but it’s the difference between fleeing persecution and fleeing prosecution.