| > Not censorship. Brazilian law allows you to remove content in case of criminal investigation, threatenings, unbased defamation.... 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. |
Ok, now you need to prove that the conditions are not being met. As the prosecutors in each case will present the proofs for each case when the inquiry becomes a criminal case.
> How many people on the left have been investigated for threatening or defaming a right wing politician since the inquiry was opened?
Perhaps, the secret for not being condemned is not commit crimes...? Is the left also trying a coup or created digital militias to spread disinformation and threats like the far right...?
> 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.
The court interpretation was not challenged by AGU and PGR (https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2020/06/10/agu-e-pgr-d...). Even if you were the authority selected by democratic governments to interpret the law, which you are not, following your interpretation, the other entities that should open the inquiry all agreed with the inquiry.
> mass incarceration of people without formal accusation,
Trying to abolish the rule of law, armed criminal association, vandalism, destruction of historical items are not serious accusations enough...? All them were jailed in flagrant. If you kill someone and is captured on the act, you will be jailed on flagrant, you cannot escape this trying to defend yourself saying that "nobody opened yet a formal accusation". The formal accusation will be opened, but we had a flagrant crime.