Comments for The Real Lesson of Brazil's Cicarelli Hot Video and YouTube Ban at http://www.brazzilmag.com , comment 0 to 14 out of 14 comments http://www.brazzilmag.com Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:48:38 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/7746/54/#pc_18055 I agree with Good PR This will enhance both their careers. - adam Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:12:23 +0100 http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/7746/54/#pc_6448 "NO BANKER WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HIS LIFE EXPOSED LIKE THIS" SO DON´T FUCK ON A PUBLIC BEACH THEN! Jesus, you folks are thick. - Grunt Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:23:39 +0100 http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/7746/54/#pc_6447 THE ISSUE HERE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MODEL .I REALLY THING THAT IF ANY OF YOU HAD A VIDEO LIKE THIS EXPOSED IN THE NET, YOU WOULD ALSO TRY TO STOP IT, SO THAT'S WHAT THE GIRL'S BOYFRIEND IS DOING. THE GUY IS A MERRILL BANKER AND I'M SURE THAT EVEN IN BRAZIL THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A "MACHO" COUNTRY (AS MR. HOST SAID. DESPITE HE PROBABLY DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO FIND BRAZIL IN THE MAP) NO BANKER WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HIS LIFE EXPOSED LIKE THIS, - JOSH Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:54:34 +0100 http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/7746/54/#pc_6442 This will enhance both their careers. But really there is NO CLASS in this at all. cheapsh*t. - Simon Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:21:15 +0100 http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/7746/54/#pc_6424 I have been following this story since September. I would like to thank you for placing the respponsibility of this judicial fiasco where it belongs, in the kelp. I had read they were upset about the film making them look stupid. I read this many times way back then. Secondly, I strongly believed Toto had been the one eager to sue. There is a question that remains unanswered: I believe they sued after Google bought YouTube. This detail changes the perspective form "honor" to "greed." This was a nice post, I liked your blog and shall come back. - tina oiticica harris Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:36:09 +0100 http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/7746/54/#pc_6417 Why the fuzz about having sex and why the censorship if it was in a public place - Eduardo Wed, 10 Jan 2007 04:39:32 +0100 http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/7746/54/#pc_6410 Well, according to "A Brazilian", the press here in brazil is more free than in most other places in the world. This censorship is absurd!! And one can equate this to the governments of China and those in the middle east that "censor" their media as well as internet access within their countries. This is so absurd it leaves me speechless, but unfortunately I can't say that I'm surprised!! - bo Tue, 09 Jan 2007 15:35:11 +0100 http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/7746/54/#pc_6408 Alltheway and Stephen, you both have raised an exceptional point here, and one that that is not lost on the more intelligent side of the Brazilian population. The couple were in PUBLIC (charges of public indecency SHOULD be more applicable here), and as far as I know, filming anyone in a public place is not illegal, OR, none of the paparazzi images that frequent sites like terra.com.br or A GENTE could be published. What was the name of that Brazilian novela actress who appeared the same week as Britney “sem calcinhas”? This law will be struck down when it gets to a higher court with a judge that actually knows about the constitution (like the issue with the American pilots and their passports), but it will take time. Frighteningly enough, it goes to show you the “lopsided power”, once again, given to local judges. They can demand passports withheld, the fingerprinting of foreigners, and now the banning of one of the most popular sites on-line on a simple personal whim, and it usually takes a higher court to raise actual LEGAL issues. Judges like this need to be investigated….I’m sure “O playboyzinho” flipped a few bucks the judge´s way for such a bizarre and unconstitutional decision. - grunt Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:20:43 +0100 http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/7746/54/#pc_6407 Hey alltheway, I don't think the public will be told what the legal grounds were for the ban. Brazilians have a long history of poor public comportment both inside the country and outside as well. Being topless on most beaches in Brazil is ilegal and on Copacabana the cops will confront a woman who is topless.( but maybe for a date) In Spain it is most likley ilegal to be f**king on a public beach as in Brazil. In the end I think the whole scandal is just a sham for publicly for one dickhead and one slut. The writer of the article is right. Brazilians love scandal but don''t take it seriously - Stephen Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:32:31 +0100 http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/7746/54/#pc_6404 Neither article here says any thing about WHY the court ruled as it did ? Does nayone know what the actual LEGAL grounds were ? - alltheway Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:11:05 +0100 http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/7746/54/#pc_6402 Sex censorship in Brasil, now I have seen it ALL - alltheway Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:50:01 +0100 http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/7746/54/#pc_6400 Voltamos a idade das trevas - We come back the age of the darknesses - - Sergio Tue, 09 Jan 2007 01:21:11 +0100 http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/7746/54/#pc_6399 No one in that beach asked to see her humping in public. It was disrespectful but she did it anyway. So how does she have the right to complain that people are seeing the video? Don't want people to see you having sex?..then don't hump like a slut in front of everybody. - HB Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:29:37 +0100 http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/7746/54/#pc_6398 Why isn't anyone talking about the fact that it is entirely unconstitutional for a country, or a person, for that matter, to try and stop a sex tape that was filmed IN PUBLIC on a PUBLIC beach in plain view of several people? It's a completely different situation that making a sex tape privately in your own home, and then seeing it surface later on the Internet because a housekeeper or someone else illegally removed it from the home. I'm dumbfounded the Brazilian legal system seems to think it has authority over this in any way, but even more so that YouTube would cooperate in anyway at all. They should have laughed at this injunction and referrered everyone to the definition of freedom of speech. - Kevin Mon, 08 Jan 2007 23:47:02 +0100