3 ms·

[1,2] If a lawyer is defending a criminal does that mean he's aiding them or somehow part of their criminal organization? It seems you don't understand how law

by gverri 2y ago

[1,2] If a lawyer is defending a criminal does that mean he's aiding them or somehow part of their criminal organization? It seems you don't understand how law works. The guy has been a high profile lawyer for decades before he became SJ minister. You want him to be poor?! [3] Just allegations with no substantiality. [4] He has an injunction that allows him to "censure" people and media in regards to the 2022 election. It was approved by the whole SJ court.

andrenth 2y ago
> Just allegations with no substantiality. The article I’ve linked lists are least five reasons his actions are illegal, with the respective citations explaining why they are illegal. Just because you chose to ignore that, doesn’t make it unsubstantiated. > He has an injunction that allows him to "censure" people and media At least you admit Brazil is under a censorship regime. Dictatorships are always backed by the law. By the way, any injunction that contradicts the constitution is by definition illegal.
- gverri 2y ago
  Unless you want to have a childish view of reality you have to agree that if it's done under the law there's not much you can do. Our history is filled with such cases. From all sides of the political spectrum. The proclamation of the republic, the Getulio dictatorship, the military dictatorship, Dilma's impeachment, etc...
  - andrenth 2y ago
    So should we just accept that the country is now a dictatorship and move on?
ufo 2y ago
[flagged]
- andrenth 2y ago
  Is defending freedom of speech a waste of time?
matheusmoreira 2y ago
No one cares what their little "injunction" says. "Censure" is unconstitutional. That's all that should matter. The fact this is allowed to stand is proof that the supreme court is above the constitution, above brazilian law. A state of exception.

3 ms·

[1,2] If a lawyer is defending a criminal does that mean he's aiding them or somehow part of their criminal organization? It seems you don't understand how law

by gverri 2y ago

andrenth 2y ago
> Just allegations with no substantiality. The article I’ve linked lists are least five reasons his actions are illegal, with the respective citations explaining why they are illegal. Just because you chose to ignore that, doesn’t make it unsubstantiated. > He has an injunction that allows him to "censure" people and media At least you admit Brazil is under a censorship regime. Dictatorships are always backed by the law. By the way, any injunction that contradicts the constitution is by definition illegal.
- gverri 2y ago
  Unless you want to have a childish view of reality you have to agree that if it's done under the law there's not much you can do. Our history is filled with such cases. From all sides of the political spectrum. The proclamation of the republic, the Getulio dictatorship, the military dictatorship, Dilma's impeachment, etc...
  - andrenth 2y ago
    So should we just accept that the country is now a dictatorship and move on?
ufo 2y ago
[flagged]
- andrenth 2y ago
  Is defending freedom of speech a waste of time?
matheusmoreira 2y ago
No one cares what their little "injunction" says. "Censure" is unconstitutional. That's all that should matter. The fact this is allowed to stand is proof that the supreme court is above the constitution, above brazilian law. A state of exception.