3 ms·

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? Bec

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..
    - matheusmoreira 2y ago
      It doesn't matter what lesser laws say if the constitution says otherwise. Constitution says manifestation of thought is free and censorship is illegal. > Term IX. > expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific, and communication activity is free, independent of any censorship or license If your speech hurts somebody, they get to answer and to be made whole. The original insult is not censored. We see it all the time with politicians insulting and threatening each other. The other party sues, judiciary applies a fine, that's all there is to it.
      - tmottabr 2y ago
        Sure.. but this law was never challenged and thus it was never deemed unconstitutional.. Something only the supreme court can do when the proper process is started.. Until this happen the courts must assume the law is valid and apply it as such..
gamblor956 2y ago
Where is this exception? In the history of Constitutions, no constitution explicitly states that violent speech is protected. Because until now, they've never had to...it's always been understood. Indeed, the the First Congress of the U.S. passed the Sedition Act just a few years after America was formed and it remained law until 1920 (when it was repealed by Congress). For more recent examples, yelling "fire" in a crowded venue is also prohibited (this example is given to law students). It is important to understand that the law separates the content of the speech from the act it represents, so saying the word "fire" is allowed; what is prohibited is the act of doing something that will inflict harm on others by causing terror and mayhem. As most constitutions are based on the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. history is relevant to Brazil because it demonstrates that no Constitution protects unfettered speech. To apply the above to what is happening in Brazil: the words are protected, but the act of promoting violence is prohibited. Thus, the far-right extremists' accounts are censored (because they are using those words to engage in the act of inciting violence) but everyone else can say what they said because other people aren't trying to incite violence when they quote the extremists.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  The punishment for incitation of crime is either a fine or imprisonment for up to 6 months. If they're commiting that crime, then fine or arrest them. Don't mess with their thoughts though. As far as I'm concerned, they are and should be free to think and say whatever they want, even if they think violence should be promoted. Democracy is not justified in defending itself until the very second somebody picks up a weapon and tries to put an end to it. If we start censoring people who "call for violence" as part of their politics, oh boy, do I have a huge list of malefactors for these judges. Plenty of openly violent communist revolutionaries in this country, after all. I'm sure this supreme court would do nothing about them even if presented with such a list, though. After all there is a communist judge among them. This is a country where nazis go straight to jail but where socialists and communists walk the soil completely unpunished. That's my biggest issue with decisions like these: the selectivity. Why is it that only one side gets to be extreme? This is just wrongthink.

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..
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    It doesn't matter what lesser laws say if the constitution says otherwise. Constitution says manifestation of thought is free and censorship is illegal. > Term IX. > expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific, and communication activity is free, independent of any censorship or license If your speech hurts somebody, they get to answer and to be made whole. The original insult is not censored. We see it all the time with politicians insulting and threatening each other. The other party sues, judiciary applies a fine, that's all there is to it.
    - tmottabr 2y ago
      Sure.. but this law was never challenged and thus it was never deemed unconstitutional.. Something only the supreme court can do when the proper process is started.. Until this happen the courts must assume the law is valid and apply it as such..

gamblor956 2y ago

Where is this exception? In the history of Constitutions, no constitution explicitly states that violent speech is protected. Because until now, they've never had to...it's always been understood. Indeed, the the First Congress of the U.S. passed the Sedition Act just a few years after America was formed and it remained law until 1920 (when it was repealed by Congress). For more recent examples, yelling "fire" in a crowded venue is also prohibited (this example is given to law students). It is important to understand that the law separates the content of the speech from the act it represents, so saying the word "fire" is allowed; what is prohibited is the act of doing something that will inflict harm on others by causing terror and mayhem. As most constitutions are based on the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. history is relevant to Brazil because it demonstrates that no Constitution protects unfettered speech. To apply the above to what is happening in Brazil: the words are protected, but the act of promoting violence is prohibited. Thus, the far-right extremists' accounts are censored (because they are using those words to engage in the act of inciting violence) but everyone else can say what they said because other people aren't trying to incite violence when they quote the extremists.

matheusmoreira 2y ago
The punishment for incitation of crime is either a fine or imprisonment for up to 6 months. If they're commiting that crime, then fine or arrest them. Don't mess with their thoughts though. As far as I'm concerned, they are and should be free to think and say whatever they want, even if they think violence should be promoted. Democracy is not justified in defending itself until the very second somebody picks up a weapon and tries to put an end to it. If we start censoring people who "call for violence" as part of their politics, oh boy, do I have a huge list of malefactors for these judges. Plenty of openly violent communist revolutionaries in this country, after all. I'm sure this supreme court would do nothing about them even if presented with such a list, though. After all there is a communist judge among them. This is a country where nazis go straight to jail but where socialists and communists walk the soil completely unpunished. That's my biggest issue with decisions like these: the selectivity. Why is it that only one side gets to be extreme? This is just wrongthink.