[throwawaysugar]

> Brazil has been on a slippery slope regarding free speech.

Citation needed. Free speech is not an "unlimited right" in Brazil (I'd argue it's not an unlimited right in the U.S. either, but that's not necessary here)

Article 3 of the 1988 Constitution of Brazil states:

Art. 3 The fundamental objectives of the Federative Republic of Brazil are:

I. to build a free, just and unified society;

II. to guarantee national development;

III. to eradicate poverty and substandard living conditions and to reduce social and regional inequalities;

IV. to promote the well-being of all, without prejudice as to origin, race, sex, color, age and any other forms of discrimination.

---

You can also just read on Wikipedia about this to be better informed... it's literally on the "Freedom of speech in Brazil" article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Brazil#Ty...

[Georgelemental]

> Free speech is not an "unlimited right" in Brazil

Free speech exists as an unlimited right everywhere. Sometimes, tyrants fail to recognize that existence, is all

[waffleiron]

Human rights are cultural, for example the right to food and housing is seen by some other cultures as a human right. Does that mean the US ruled by tyrants for not recognizing that?

Human rights are not as universal as you might think.

[Georgelemental]

Human rights are human, that's why they're called "human rights." If they were cultural, they would be called "cultural rights." Some people claim that food and housing are "human rights"; those people are factually wrong because food and housing are limited resources that require time and effort to obtain. (In contrast, speaking one's mind is something anyone can just do; it's an intrinsic property of being human.)

[drowsspa]

"Factually wrong" oh yeah, I'm being factual and logical and those others are being ideological and political.

[Georgelemental]

Yes, this is in fact one of the few cases where a philosopical question has clear-cut, empirically verifiable right and wrong answers.

(Merry Christmas btw)

[drowsspa]

Of course, like I said, libertarianism is empirically verifiably right. Got it.

[waffleiron]

The view that only negative rights are human rights is not a given and quite libertarian. For example education is often seen as a human right and is a positive right.

Human rights depend on what one values and that’s different for different groups. It’s crazy to think that the way a certain country/person/ideology think about rights is the only correct way.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

[Georgelemental]

Once again, the universality of human rights is implied by their name, "human rights." If the government of Slevobia wants to provide healthcare to all Slevobian citizens, more power to them; but healthcare is then a "right of Slevobian citizens," not a "human right."