3 ms·

The banned accounts promoted violence against political opponents, which is generally an exception from protected speech.

marcosdumay 2y ago
It is indeed a recognized exception in Brazil. Also, our constitutions grants absolute freedom to communicate facts, while free expression is limited that way. What is messed up here is how those things happened. It's not even clear if it's about hate speech, because the the censoring orders are themselves secret. But then, the way Twitter handled things was messed up too.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  Expression of thought is free. As brazilians we don't have the right to censor others, we have the right to answer and to be compensated for damages. The original insult is not censored. I cited all the relevant parts of the constitution in a previous post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41599925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41599925 I could not find the exception you spoke of in the constitution. I agree with you about the irregular and illegal nature of the orders. The judge did not even give the defense lawyers the details. This is not how a civilized nation does things.
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    > I could not find the exception you spoke of in the constitution. It's usually based on the article 4°. And yeah, I do agree it pushes quite a lot from the literal text. But anyway, it's the courts interpretation since the 90s. But you are right to question it.
    - matheusmoreira 2y ago
      Can you please cite and copy the exact text of the constitution which bases this? I use this english translation of the constitution for citations: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017 Every point in the text is linkable. Searching the constitution's text for article 4 gives me these: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017#s30 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017#s... An enumeration of the republic's objectives in the context of its international relations. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017#s4596 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017#s... What appears to be some historic details concerning the transition from last century's military dictatorship to the democracy. I still cannot find it. Anyway... I'm not exactly a fan of the "it's the court's interpretation" argument. It's an appeal to authority. The authority of these judges is questionable. They aren't real judges whose knowledge of law was tested by competition via concurso público. They're there due to their political connections. When it comes to correct application of the law, I'd sooner trust the judges in the lower courts than the current president's former lawyer. I'm also not a fan of the word "interpretation". It opens the door to the selective and creative applications of the law. These judges usurped power when they started legislating instead of applying the law as written. I've had actual lawyers complain to my face about cases where these judges just made up their own interpretation instead of doing what the written text says. I really want to see the article you speak of so that I can at least try to understand the logic they're using.
      - marcosdumay 2y ago
        AFAIK, it's usually based on the item 8: repudiation of terrorism and racism. But this one decision may be about something else, nobody knows. Those are not details about the transition from the dictatorship. They are expected to be followed by all of the remaining of the text. And yeah, that translation is correct, the actual text doesn't say that at all. IMO, the entire thing is very bullshitty. There is an entire idea of "legal principles", taken out of context from random places on the Constitution, and the entire Judiciary upholds them, except when they decide not to. That started as soon as the constitution-writing assembly was dismissed. (Just to add, even our first "democratically elected" president after the new constitution was picked by a decision like that.)
        matheusmoreira 2y ago
        > item 8: repudiation of terrorism and racism I see it now. Thank you. I don't agree with their interpretation but I see what you're getting at. > the entire Judiciary upholds them, except when they decide not to I started smelling bullshit too when I noticed this. These judges are not impartial at all. > That started as soon as the constitution-writing assembly was dismissed. How sad... The popular saying here is "doctors think they're gods, judges know it". So things have always worked that way. Realizing this now as an adult is extremely demoralizing and disillusioning.
        marcosdumay 2y ago
        If you want to get truly disillusioned, look at how Sarney became president.
matheusmoreira 2y ago
Where, in the brazilian constitution, does it say that you can censor people if they "promote violence" in their political speech? Where is this exception? Because I looked for it and I didn't find it. Every thread about this topic, I ask my fellow brazilians to cite this exception and I have yet to get an actual response. Best I've got was an anti-nazism law which is inferior to the constitution and therefore irrelevant, and should have been declared unconstitutional anyway. Not because I support nazism but because banning nazism, a political ideology, would open the door to banning other political ideologies. So unless someone explains to me what this "exception" is, I won't be convinced.
- tmottabr 2y ago
  This has nothing to do with political speech.. Article 286 from the penal code prohibit to incite the practice of crimes. Any speech, political or otherwise, that incite violence toward another is a crime..
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    Just to point, but this is usually applied with the article 4 of the Constitution. Otherwise the law would be plainly invalid.
    - tmottabr 2y ago
      Article 4 from the constitution talk about international relations.. not sure how that would apply here..
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    Yes, and the punishment for that is either a fine or imprisonment for up to 6 months. Where does it say the judge can censor it?
    - tmottabr 2y ago
      the marco civil da internet has provisions to take illegal content published in sites or social media via court order..

marcosdumay 2y ago

It is indeed a recognized exception in Brazil. Also, our constitutions grants absolute freedom to communicate facts, while free expression is limited that way. What is messed up here is how those things happened. It's not even clear if it's about hate speech, because the the censoring orders are themselves secret. But then, the way Twitter handled things was messed up too.

matheusmoreira 2y ago
Expression of thought is free. As brazilians we don't have the right to censor others, we have the right to answer and to be compensated for damages. The original insult is not censored. I cited all the relevant parts of the constitution in a previous post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41599925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41599925 I could not find the exception you spoke of in the constitution. I agree with you about the irregular and illegal nature of the orders. The judge did not even give the defense lawyers the details. This is not how a civilized nation does things.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  > I could not find the exception you spoke of in the constitution. It's usually based on the article 4°. And yeah, I do agree it pushes quite a lot from the literal text. But anyway, it's the courts interpretation since the 90s. But you are right to question it.
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    Can you please cite and copy the exact text of the constitution which bases this? I use this english translation of the constitution for citations: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017 Every point in the text is linkable. Searching the constitution's text for article 4 gives me these: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017#s30 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017#s... An enumeration of the republic's objectives in the context of its international relations. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017#s4596 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017#s... What appears to be some historic details concerning the transition from last century's military dictatorship to the democracy. I still cannot find it. Anyway... I'm not exactly a fan of the "it's the court's interpretation" argument. It's an appeal to authority. The authority of these judges is questionable. They aren't real judges whose knowledge of law was tested by competition via concurso público. They're there due to their political connections. When it comes to correct application of the law, I'd sooner trust the judges in the lower courts than the current president's former lawyer. I'm also not a fan of the word "interpretation". It opens the door to the selective and creative applications of the law. These judges usurped power when they started legislating instead of applying the law as written. I've had actual lawyers complain to my face about cases where these judges just made up their own interpretation instead of doing what the written text says. I really want to see the article you speak of so that I can at least try to understand the logic they're using.
    - marcosdumay 2y ago
      AFAIK, it's usually based on the item 8: repudiation of terrorism and racism. But this one decision may be about something else, nobody knows. Those are not details about the transition from the dictatorship. They are expected to be followed by all of the remaining of the text. And yeah, that translation is correct, the actual text doesn't say that at all. IMO, the entire thing is very bullshitty. There is an entire idea of "legal principles", taken out of context from random places on the Constitution, and the entire Judiciary upholds them, except when they decide not to. That started as soon as the constitution-writing assembly was dismissed. (Just to add, even our first "democratically elected" president after the new constitution was picked by a decision like that.)
      - matheusmoreira 2y ago
        > item 8: repudiation of terrorism and racism I see it now. Thank you. I don't agree with their interpretation but I see what you're getting at. > the entire Judiciary upholds them, except when they decide not to I started smelling bullshit too when I noticed this. These judges are not impartial at all. > That started as soon as the constitution-writing assembly was dismissed. How sad... The popular saying here is "doctors think they're gods, judges know it". So things have always worked that way. Realizing this now as an adult is extremely demoralizing and disillusioning.
        marcosdumay 2y ago
        If you want to get truly disillusioned, look at how Sarney became president.

matheusmoreira 2y ago

Where, in the brazilian constitution, does it say that you can censor people if they "promote violence" in their political speech? Where is this exception? Because I looked for it and I didn't find it. Every thread about this topic, I ask my fellow brazilians to cite this exception and I have yet to get an actual response. Best I've got was an anti-nazism law which is inferior to the constitution and therefore irrelevant, and should have been declared unconstitutional anyway. Not because I support nazism but because banning nazism, a political ideology, would open the door to banning other political ideologies. So unless someone explains to me what this "exception" is, I won't be convinced.

tmottabr 2y ago
This has nothing to do with political speech.. Article 286 from the penal code prohibit to incite the practice of crimes. Any speech, political or otherwise, that incite violence toward another is a crime..
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  Just to point, but this is usually applied with the article 4 of the Constitution. Otherwise the law would be plainly invalid.
  - tmottabr 2y ago
    Article 4 from the constitution talk about international relations.. not sure how that would apply here..
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  Yes, and the punishment for that is either a fine or imprisonment for up to 6 months. Where does it say the judge can censor it?
  - tmottabr 2y ago
    the marco civil da internet has provisions to take illegal content published in sites or social media via court order..