4 ms·

Wow, that is certainly going around the right-wing Christian news sites, almost all with the same copy. I found some Brazilian coverage. https://www.gazetadopo

by eesmith 3mo ago

Wow, that is certainly going around the right-wing Christian news sites, almost all with the same copy. I found some Brazilian coverage. https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/vida-e-cidadania/juiz-que-condenou-familia-a-prisao-por-ensino-domiciliar-e-alvo-de-denuncia-no-cnj/ https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/vida-e-cidadania/juiz-que-co... says something somewhat different than the text you copied: "Ainda segundo a defesa, entre os argumentos usados pelo magistrado estaria a fala de uma das adolescentes que disse não gostar de estilos musicais como funk e sertanejo. A afirmação teria sido interpretada como demonstração de “suposta discriminação e preconceito na educação” domiciliar ministrada pelos pais, que foram condenados criminalmente." That is: "According to the defense, one of the arguments used by the judge was a statement made by one of the teenage girls, who said she did not like musical genres such as funk and sertanejo. The statement was reportedly interpreted as evidence of “alleged discrimination and prejudice in the home education” provided by her parents, who were convicted of a criminal offense." This is a claim made by the defense attorney in the appeal, and was not, from what I can tell, a conclusion determined by the court. I was not able to find anyone linking to the court's judgement. Also: "Os dois foram sentenciados a 50 dias de detenção em regime semiaberto, pena posteriormente substituída por medidas alternativas." https://claudiodantas.com.br/filha-de-casal-condenado-por-homeschooling/ https://claudiodantas.com.br/filha-de-casal-condenado-por-ho... The 50 days in semi-open detention was later replaced by alternative measures. From what I can tell, "Regime fechado" (closed regime) means the sentence in a maximum or medium security establishment; "Regime semiaberto" (semi-open) means its in an agricultural, industrial or similar establishment colony "Regime aberto" (open) is in a sheltered house or appropriate establishment. I can't think of a US English equivalent to "regime semiaberto", but it seems less than what we think of with "jail". Like, https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime_semiaberto https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime_semiaberto links to an article describing how in the US "Programas tais como o regime semiaberto têm diminuído no país, não existindo as chamadas "saidinhas" temporárias, tão comuns no Brasil." ("Programs such as the semi-open prison system have been on the decline [in the US], and the so-called temporary "day passes," which are so common in Brazil, no longer exist")

like_any_other 3mo ago
> Wow, that is certainly going around the right-wing Christian news sites, almost all with the same copy. Or to put it in other words, it's being ignored by all other news sites. One would think treating children as property of the state, and requiring explicit indoctrination in "tolerance and diversity", would warrant more attention from our media that is so concerned with authoritarianism. > one of the arguments used by the judge was a statement made by one of the teenage girls [..] This is a claim made by the defense attorney in the appeal, and was not, from what I can tell, a conclusion determined by the court. So it was not a conclusion, but the reasoning used to reach the conclusion. I don't see how that's any better.
- Sabinus 3mo ago
  How do you know that Western Christian outlets are reporting the story accurately?
  - like_any_other 3mo ago
    That's a universal objection you could raise about any story. In any case, eesmith linked some Brazilian reporting on the case, and despite their nitpicking, it says broadly the same things.
    - eesmith 3mo ago
      While the details were significantly different. Like how the parents didn't teach legally required topics, and like how the judge supposedly ruled based on the kid's dislike of funk and sertanejo was a claim from the family, and apparently not based on the ruling.
      - like_any_other 3mo ago
        > Like how the parents didn't teach legally required topics The article said what they didn't teach, and that the court didn't like it. That those topics were legally required was implied - it's certainly how I interpreted it, despite no explicit line saying "oh by the way these topics are legally required/not required". In other words, the article didn't state it explicitly either way, the reasonable disambiguation is the correct one, and yet you're treating the absence of explicit disambiguation as a "significant" factual error. > dislike of funk and sertanejo was a claim from the family, and apparently not based on the ruling. No, according to you, it was "a claim made by the defense attorney in the appeal". That's a lot more trustworthy than just a random claim. Presumably lying (about things easily verifiable from a court transcript) in a legal filing is not looked kindly upon by courts, so it's reasonable to believe it. > and apparently not based on the ruling. The exact words were: The court also concluded that because the girls, aged 15 and 11, did not like “trap” or “sertanejo” (folk) music It doesn't say it was part of the ruling, only that it led to the ruling (since the judge stated it as a negative during court proceedings). I agree the wording could have been better, but as it can give the impression those words were in the actual final written judgment, not just the cause for that judgment. But that's a distinction without a difference. The only error (or rather, significant omission) is that the article should have mentioned the jail term was "limited release" or whatever modified sentence they got. That's it, and that's apparently enough to entirely dismiss reporting when you'd rather people just shut up about it. By this bar you could dismiss nearly any story from the BBC or the New York Times too.

by eesmith 3mo ago

like_any_other 3mo ago

> Wow, that is certainly going around the right-wing Christian news sites, almost all with the same copy. Or to put it in other words, it's being ignored by all other news sites. One would think treating children as property of the state, and requiring explicit indoctrination in "tolerance and diversity", would warrant more attention from our media that is so concerned with authoritarianism. > one of the arguments used by the judge was a statement made by one of the teenage girls [..] This is a claim made by the defense attorney in the appeal, and was not, from what I can tell, a conclusion determined by the court. So it was not a conclusion, but the reasoning used to reach the conclusion. I don't see how that's any better.

Sabinus 3mo ago
How do you know that Western Christian outlets are reporting the story accurately?
- like_any_other 3mo ago
  That's a universal objection you could raise about any story. In any case, eesmith linked some Brazilian reporting on the case, and despite their nitpicking, it says broadly the same things.
  - eesmith 3mo ago
    While the details were significantly different. Like how the parents didn't teach legally required topics, and like how the judge supposedly ruled based on the kid's dislike of funk and sertanejo was a claim from the family, and apparently not based on the ruling.
    - like_any_other 3mo ago
      > Like how the parents didn't teach legally required topics The article said what they didn't teach, and that the court didn't like it. That those topics were legally required was implied - it's certainly how I interpreted it, despite no explicit line saying "oh by the way these topics are legally required/not required". In other words, the article didn't state it explicitly either way, the reasonable disambiguation is the correct one, and yet you're treating the absence of explicit disambiguation as a "significant" factual error. > dislike of funk and sertanejo was a claim from the family, and apparently not based on the ruling. No, according to you, it was "a claim made by the defense attorney in the appeal". That's a lot more trustworthy than just a random claim. Presumably lying (about things easily verifiable from a court transcript) in a legal filing is not looked kindly upon by courts, so it's reasonable to believe it. > and apparently not based on the ruling. The exact words were: The court also concluded that because the girls, aged 15 and 11, did not like “trap” or “sertanejo” (folk) music It doesn't say it was part of the ruling, only that it led to the ruling (since the judge stated it as a negative during court proceedings). I agree the wording could have been better, but as it can give the impression those words were in the actual final written judgment, not just the cause for that judgment. But that's a distinction without a difference. The only error (or rather, significant omission) is that the article should have mentioned the jail term was "limited release" or whatever modified sentence they got. That's it, and that's apparently enough to entirely dismiss reporting when you'd rather people just shut up about it. By this bar you could dismiss nearly any story from the BBC or the New York Times too.