[DoctorDabadedoo]

You see no problem in companies letting people use their platform indiscriminately to coordinate school shootings, riots and extremist groups?

> Protests shouldn't be "prevented".

Are nazi rallies or KKK gatherings categorized as "protests"? The people you mention, a minority, spent 3 months rallied across the country asking for military intervention, the opposition to be arrested or killed with nothing more than hopes and dreams because their candidate lost.

> camera footage showing Lula's people assisting the vandals

I'll bite. Where is the source?

[matheusmoreira]

> You see no problem in companies letting people use their platform indiscriminately to coordinate school shootings, riots and extremist groups?

I have no problem with unrestricted and fully encrypted anonymous communications at all. Every human being should be free to exchange ideas, no matter what they are. I'm not about to turn nazism into thought crime because that requires accepting the idea of thought crime in the first place.

The limit of tolerance is exceeded only when things escalate to violence. Everything you cited? The solution is heavy policing and weapons for the population so it can defend itself. Amazingly enough, there's talk of arming school personnel... It's gonna be ironic if the same people who said violence is solved by giving books to criminals end up gaining the right to bear arms for their own self-defense.

> Are nazi rallies or KKK gatherings categorized as "protests"?

Depends.

> The people you mention, a minority, spent 3 months rallied across the country asking for military intervention

So what? They can ask for whatever they want. They should not be censored just because you find it outrageous. As long as they're being pacific they should be able to continue.

They don't believe the election's results. As far as they're concerned, TSE staged its own intervention when it started almost unilaterally censoring Bolsonaro's supporters. Political censorship which is unconstitutional by the way. Who else do you turn to when the goddamn supreme court judges start shitting all over the constitution? By now it's become clear these judge-kings are running the country. That ship has sailed.

Also I don't think voting machine fraud is some impossible conspiracy theory either. It's hard to discuss this matter with laymen who don't even know what source code is but I convinced at least one person here on HN that there's a potential supply chain vulnerability in the voting machines. It's not "unquestionable and perfect" as the judge claims.

> Where is the source?

Videos were leaked to the CNN. It was around the time Lula went to China and publicly blamed Ukraine for the invasion. Shows Lula's people interacting with and assisting the vandals and just basically doing a whole lot of nothing about them. I have no doubt it was a false flag operation to justify the criminalization of the opposition.

[DoctorDabadedoo]

> The solution is heavy policing

This whole ordeal with Telegram started precisely because of this. Free speech shouldn't be a cover to hate speech and criminal conduct, take it from Germany, who is dealing with it still to this day and will for the foreseeable future [1], what you mention is a clear example of Paradox of tolerance[2].

> They can ask for whatever they want. They should not be censored just because you find it outrageous.

People are entitled to their own thoughts, but they weren't asking for every family to be fed properly or for everyone to get puppies, their actions ended up with riot, damage to public property, people injured and road blocks that prevented people to get medical attention in life threatening conditions.

> Shows Lula's people interacting with and assisting the vandals and just basically doing a whole lot of nothing about them.

You mean the staff with heavily ties with the previous government, and that was suggested by them? Were the people that invaded and vandalized the congress and the supreme court Lula supporters too?

[1]: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-ant...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[matheusmoreira]

> Free speech shouldn't be a cover to hate speech

I don't consider "hate speech" to be a legitimate concept either. Hate is a perfectly normal human emotion. Government has absolutely no right to regulate how people feel about anything. People should be able to express their feelings, whatever they may be. Offensive speech impacts reputation and free association, it should not lead to literal prison.

> take it from Germany

No. In this context, Germany is not an example to be followed. I don't want to live in a country that feels the need to "sanitize" everything to the point of censoring swastikas from media.

If you're gonna delete harmful ideas from existence, I demand that you start with communism which has led to misery and tyranny in every country it was ever tried. Communists are in power screwing up my country this very moment. Until they're no longer allowed to walk our soil with complete impunity, I won't accept the banishment of any other idea.

> their actions ended up with riot, damage to public property, people injured and road blocks that prevented people to get medical attention in life threatening conditions

And that's the point where intervention is warranted. Doesn't justify censoring them either, just restoring order. Even Bolsonaro called for that.

> Paradox of tolerance

This "paradox" is actually a different formulation of my original argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

> I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies

> as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

> But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force

> for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument

> they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols

In other words, suppression by force is only ever warranted once the situation has escalated to actual violence. Exactly what I said in my post above.

> You mean the staff with heavily ties with the previous government, and that was suggested by them?

No.

> Were the people that invaded and vandalized the congress and the supreme court Lula supporters too?

I don't know, didn't see any footage of that.