|
|
|
|
|
by matheusmoreira
799 days ago
|
|
No, it's pretty clear cut. They censored. Let's consider the simplest possible example of a censored political statement: "Lula is a socialist". It's not a crime, it's not defamation, it's not hate speech, it's not even an insult since he's openly proud of being a comminist. Yet it was censored. I saw it happen in real time. The justification was "fake news". You yourself come in these threads about Brazil to talk about "misleading falsehoods" and how the court is justified in censoring them. So we have to resolve once and for all whether that statement is true or false. We cannot break from this loop until we determine whether he's a socialist or not. Once we have determined that, we can determine whether the court had "justification" for censoring the accusation. So tell me. Do you dispute the fact he's a communist? Do you have any doubt at all? Be honest. You keep ignoring that simple question. Discussion of this matter with you simpply cannot continue until you answer it. When you finally do, it's going to go in one of two directions. Either you admit that he is in fact a communist, in which case the supreme court judges censored the truth for political gain which violates the constitution. Or you keep insisting that he isn't a communist, I present proof that he is a communist, and then conclude that the supreme court judges censored the truth for political gain which violates the constitution. |
|