3 ms·

> Note that the text of the Brazilian constitution explicitly says that the freedom of expression is guaranteed without censorship (it mentions “censorship”). I

> Note that the text of the Brazilian constitution explicitly says that the freedom of expression is guaranteed without censorship (it mentions “censorship”). If they were legal orders they would have complied, as they have in other countries. Said "freedom of expression" in Brazil is constrained by the following paragraphs, that for example explicitly: IV - requires anything considered "free speech" to be explicitly non-anonymous. V - anything considered "free speech" must pay compensation to harmed third parties. X - "free speech" can't violate the personal privacy and honor of third parties. XVII - "free speech" doesn't apply to you if you're trying to assemble a paramilitary force. It is not "free speech" in the "I speak what I want" sense at all. Violation of those rules isn't considered "censorship" because you didn't have the rights (to be anonymous, to harm others, and to assemble juntas) to start with.

matheusmoreira 2y ago
Harming others does not justify censorship. Brazilians get to answer and to be made whole via legal means. Article 5, term V. They don't get to preempt or prevent the speech. You cited term X which says people's intimacy, private life, honor and image are inviolable. Looks like you didn't finish reading it though. Right after those words is written the following: > the right to be indemnified for the material or moral damage secondary to their violation is guaranteed It basically says you're entitled to a payday if someone damages your privacy or reputation. Nowhere does it say that censorship is warranted. The constitution goes out of its way to explicitly mention that censorship is prohibited multiple times and in multiple places. > The expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific and communication activity is free, independently of censorship or license > Any and all censorship of political, ideological or artistic nature is prohibited
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Harming others does not justify censorship I know nothing about Brazilian law. But in general, we always create exceptions to free speech when balancing harms. Spam filtering. Fraud. Et cetera.

matheusmoreira 2y ago

Harming others does not justify censorship. Brazilians get to answer and to be made whole via legal means. Article 5, term V. They don't get to preempt or prevent the speech. You cited term X which says people's intimacy, private life, honor and image are inviolable. Looks like you didn't finish reading it though. Right after those words is written the following: > the right to be indemnified for the material or moral damage secondary to their violation is guaranteed It basically says you're entitled to a payday if someone damages your privacy or reputation. Nowhere does it say that censorship is warranted. The constitution goes out of its way to explicitly mention that censorship is prohibited multiple times and in multiple places. > The expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific and communication activity is free, independently of censorship or license > Any and all censorship of political, ideological or artistic nature is prohibited

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Harming others does not justify censorship I know nothing about Brazilian law. But in general, we always create exceptions to free speech when balancing harms. Spam filtering. Fraud. Et cetera.