5 ms·

https://jovempan.com.br/noticias/brasil/jovem-pan-sob-censura.html https://jovempan.com.br/noticias/brasil/jovem-pan-sob-censur... https://revistaoeste.com/pol

• cassianoleal 4y ago
  Thank you, but I would hardly consider these references unbiased. The first is the acutal supposedly censored media vehicle complaining. That's expected. In any case, the decision is at best in a grey area. A lot of people cry about freedom of press but the decision was around electoral laws and was simply trying to get better isonomy for both candidates. The other decision was about avoiding the use of an incredibly loaded and polemic at best situation that happened 4 years ago to influence this year's elections. Mind you, there's nothing more than hearsay and conspiracy theories to try to link the event to Lula, PT or others related to the elected President. This is an interesting topic, certainly one where there's a non-obvious balance between freedom of press and speech, and just and isonomic elections.
  • andrenth 4y ago
    They were prevented by the State to mention facts about a candidate. Facts, not opinions. This is not a grey area, it’s plain old censorship. About the documentary: it was censored based on its title only. It was not even watched by the sensors. When questioned about it, the president of the electoral court basically said something like “Let’s not fool ourselves, we know what will be there”. In other words, preemptive censorship. At the same time, a “documentary” that explicitly invited watchers to vote the opposing candidate was aired for free on YouTube on the week of the election, with zero concerns about isonomy or its influence over it. This kind of double standards casts a shadow of partisanship and illegitimacy on the electoral and supreme courts (they’re ridiculously basically the same people anyway), especially in a close election like this one.
    • cassianoleal 4y ago
      > They were prevented by the State to mention facts about a candidate. According to their own website which you linked above: “Não podemos, em nossa programação (...), falar sobre os fatos envolvendo a condenação do candidato petista Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva” Translated to English: “We are not allowed, in our programmes, to speak about facts involving the condemnation of the _petista_ (Workers Party member) candidate Luís Inácio Lula da Silva” Well, given that the condemnation was unlawful, I imagine it’s not very hard to understand why talking about it without also speaking clearly about the unlawfulness and facts around it would be misleading to the public. To your other point: > At the same time, a “documentary” that explicitly invited watchers to vote the opposing candidate > This kind of double standards I don’t know which documentary you’re talking about, but here’s some food for thought. Generally, explicitly asking for votes for one candidate makes it pretty clear what the bias in the publication is. On top of that, the other, supposedly censored work, was speculative at best - given that despite Bolsonaro’s 4 years in power and effectively commanding the Federal Police, the alleged attempt on his life was never fully solved. Publishing it during the electoral campaign was considered an attempt at misleading the public opinion against one of the candidates based on hearsay and opinions. That’s not a double standard. It’s perhaps just one that happens to inconvenience one more than the other but it’s a fairly clear one.
      • andrenth 4y ago
        > Well, given that the condemnation was unlawful, I imagine it’s not very hard to understand why talking about it without also speaking clearly about the unlawfulness and facts around it would be misleading to the public. This kind of partisan half-truth is what allows totalitarian governments to be successful. He was convicted in three instances, including by the supreme court. He was proven to be a criminal. People convicted along with him have given back money they admitted to have stolen. The "unlawfulness" part is simply the supreme court judges finding a ridiculous excuse to allow him to run against a candidate they don't like. After years they suddenly figure out "well akshually he should have been judged in a court from a different city". Yeah, like that should invalidate all the crimes that were exposed. The TV network was forbidden by the State to use specific terms like "ex-convict" and "criminal". It is not under dispute that he is both of these things. Please keep in mind that dictators always say they are acting "within the law". In fact they are, because they control the law. This is what's going on here. > On top of that, the other, supposedly censored work, was speculative at best - given that despite Bolsonaro’s 4 years in power and effectively commanding the Federal Police, the alleged attempt on his life was never fully solved. Publishing it during the electoral campaign was considered an attempt at misleading the public opinion against one of the candidates based on hearsay and opinions. The documentary wasn't even about the elections. Besides, how do you know that it was speculative? How do you know it would be an attempt to mislead the public? You didn't watch it. Nobody has, because it was preemptively censored. Whatever your political side is, left or right, I beg you, please don't side with censors.