My main objection was the near uniformity of all reporting on the topic, all seemingly derived from one English publication, with no links to Brazilian sources

My main objection was the near uniformity of all reporting on the topic, all seemingly derived from one English publication, with no links to Brazilian sources nor links to court documents - if available. As I demonstrated, these additional sources were not hard to find. Nice tactical skepticism to point to a minor part of my statement as if that were the totality of it. Are the sites which are promoting this article "reliable" and "trustworthy"? Why are they omitting facts like how the decision for 10 days of semi-open jail was rescinded? I do not understand how you can call this decision "authoritarianism", except if you have the extreme belief that any sort of compulsory education, or state control of educational standards which can override the parents, to be authoritarian. Since you do not, what actually is authoritarian here? We have explicit ideological indoctrination all the time. In the US we were indoctrinated into US ideology, which is why we talk about "our founding fathers", while the English are indoctrinated to be subjects of His/Her majesty. It's only when people don't like something that they call it "explicit ideological indoctrination". Do you think requiring kids to have age appropriate sexual education to be an explicit ideological indoctrination? Do you think that requirement is authoritarian? If the parents refuse to follow the law, as the case here, should they not be punished by the court?