| >, censors elected congressmen and journalists without due process Not censorship. Brazilian law allows you to remove content in case of criminal investigation, threatenings, unbased defamation.... > arrests people with without due process, withdraws access to case files to defense attorneys > You think this is some sort of slam dunk argument but it is so juvenile that it shouldn't even deserve a thoughtful reply. It's not mine, its your argument. You says that people that attacks or theatens STF judge cannot be judged by them, even in the context that the law allows it. According with you, if the presidents enters in STF and try to shoot the judges, nobody should judge him, as the law says that STF should judge this situation, but the STF minister were the targeted victims. > This is the core of the problem. The Supreme Court has the power to do whatever it wants, without limits. I It is not acting without limits. Contrary to your narrative nobody is being just censored. People are being charged with real accusations, like threatening other people, attempt against the rule of law, etc.
This is just blatant lie. |
The law allows that under certain conditions, yes. Are these conditions being met? No. It’s being used as a political weapon in a crusade of the Supreme Court against certain political beliefs.
When you have rules that are selectively applied by a political court, it is censorship.
How many people on the left have been investigated for threatening or defaming a right wing politician since the inquiry was opened?
> You says that people that attacks or theatens STF judge cannot be judged by them, even in the context that the law allows it.
There is no law that allows it. There is an internal regiment, which the newer 1988 constitution contradicts. But even if you ignore that, the regiment very clearly defines under which conditions the Supreme Court itself can open an inquiry, that is, crimes that happen within the premises of the court. That requirement was clearly not satisfied, so the court invented a new “interpretation” that considers things that happen on the internet to be within its premises.
> It is not acting without limits.
Yes it is, as I have explained multiple times. Bypassing jurisdiction, coming up with convenient “interpretations” that give them more power, mass incarceration of people without formal accusation, denying defense attorneys access to court papers, requiring content to be taken offline without due process, and so on.
You cannot bend the law to go after people you don’t like. That’s not how democracy works.