[thiagoharry]

Sure, a law is unconstitutional because you say so. You are the appointed authority to interpret the law... All your comments show that you do not understand nothing about law, as you try to interpret it as some sort of formal algorithm or something like this. You use the fact that some right exist to accuse laws of being unconstitutional, blatantly ignoring the basics of law that several of them are created to manage conflicts of different rights. You cannot say that a criminal cannot be jailed because he has the right of freedom, because jailing him is exactly how you manage the conflicts between his rights and everyone else's right. The same goes to free speech.

If you check with law specialists, nobody would agree with you, except a small minority. Several law specialists will agree with banning of nazism: https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-60338244

You should learn more about hermeneutics if you want to discuss law interpretation. Law is not interpreted by a formal machine or algorithm. Historical and social context, the law objective and other things are also taken into account. Exactly because these are the things that direct how the conflicts between different rights are managed by the law of a given country.

> If you're gonna jail nazis, why in the fuck won't you also jail communists who are even worse?

1) "I think that some ethnic groups are better than others and some of them should be erradicated to the better of human race."

2) "I think that there should be no private property of the means of production."

So, you are saying that (2) is worse than (1)!? McCarthyism is a hellish drug!

> It just prohibits nazi paraphernalia and propaganda.

> Just incredibly ironic that you are the one who ended up spreading misinformation.

You really did not read the law, except for the parts that were convenient for you... Article 20 says that it is also illegal: "Practice, induce ou incite discrimination based on race, skin color, ethnical group or region of birth." Defending a nazi party would mean inciting discrimination.

[matheusmoreira]

> Sure, a law is unconstitutional because you say so. You are the appointed authority to interpret the law...

I'm not required to be some "law authority" to interpret the law and express my opinions on it.

> You use the fact that some right exist to accuse laws of being unconstitutional

I use the fact that the constitution says something, and that lesser laws say other things that are in complete opposition to it. Something that obviously should not be allowed to happen. If some lower law contradicts the goddamn constitution, obviously the constitution is supposed to prevail and the lesser law is supposed to be invalidated.

You make it sound like you need 6 years of legal education to grasp this simple concept. That's literally what "unconstitutional" means, you know. It's something that contradicts the constitution.

> You cannot say that a criminal cannot be jailed because he has the right of freedom

Except I said nothing of the sort. I said that some lesser law defines something to be a crime, and the constitution explicitly defines it to be a non crime. Therefore the lesser law is invalid and it is not a crime. He cannot be jailed because he is not actually a criminal.

> If you check with law specialists, nobody would agree with you, except a small minority.

And who are these "law specialists" you're citing? ... A criminal lawyer who sells a book on the subject. Her argument is literally that "nazism represents evil" and therefore society should ignore what's written on the law. The mere fact she used that argument shows that she's aware of what the constitution says. Ironically, your law expert admits that I'm right. She just thinks that my entire position should be straight up ignored because nazism is too evil. She knows it's unconstitutional but she wants it done anyway. Truly mind boggling.

Look, I don't even care. Go ahead and ban the nazis. I don't actually have a problem with that so long as you remember to apply the exact same standard to the communists. If you fail to do that, I'm gonna start asking hard questions.

> You should learn more about hermeneutics if you want to discuss law interpretation.

Nah, I got better things to do. Besides, this country doesn't actually have laws anyway. Whatever the supreme court judges say is the real law. Why learn all this nonsense when they just ignore it anyway? The judge-king himself makes an appearance in your article and lays down the law: "free speech does not authorize the abominable and criminal nazism apologia". There you go. There's no point in even discussing it anymore. What's the point of learning about the brazilian constitution? Just watch what this guy says on Twitter instead.

> Historical and social context, the law objective and other things are also taken into account.

I've seen this exact same argument so many times now, it's never convincing. The net neutrality laws immediately come to mind. "Oh no, see here, we worded it this way in order to ban the so called fast lanes, it's not meant to be used to stop the telecoms from charging you differently based on what services you use, even though the text of the law literally says that". That's just hilariously incoherent but what can you do? That's "law experts" for you. More like lobbyists.

Maybe write the law properly in the first place so that it's precisely worded and affords no misunderstandings. That way you don't need to discuss some nebulous "spirit" of the law.

> So, you are saying that (2) is worse than (1)!?

You bet I am. If you think otherwise then you must be unaware of the atrocities committed by communist regimes all over the world. Here you go:

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

You bet it's worse. Nazis eradicated others? Communists exterminated themselves through misery, famine and forced labor. They've killed more people than any other regime. Their own people, not some "other" ethnic group. About half of those many millions were killed by starvation. That's the nonsense you're defending.

You should talk to someone who lived in those former soviet bloc countries sometime. I've seen plenty of them posting on HN over the years. Go on, ask them about the means of production.

> Defending a nazi party would mean inciting discrimination.

Not really. Defending the existence of a political party means exactly that: defending its right to exist. If the party then engages in illegal conduct, then that's a separate crime that happens after the party has been officially recognized by the law. There's absolutely no contradiction there. You can easily avoid contradicting the brazilian constitution by allowing them to organize and then imprisoning them when they inevitably commit actual crimes. You'd have to actually care about the constitution to do that though. Apparently nobody does.

[thiagoharry]

> I use the fact that the constitution says something, and that lesser laws say other things that are in complete opposition to it.

It is not an opposition! It is a way to handle conflicts between different rights! You are right: it is not a difficult concept, but you are failing to get it. You have the right of free speech. I have the right to do not be discriminated nor persecuted by color of skin or something like this. You use the free speech to argue for my killing or to share propaganda that incites my discrimination. We have a clear conflict between 2 rights. Laws will be written, and jurisprudence will be established about how to deal with the conflict. Just repeat blindly "a right is written in constitution" means very little when we are dealing with conflicts of this kind. You could argue for unconstitutionality of censoring if people were just being censored, without a previous conflict.

Moreover, the law for banning Nazism was challenged on ground of constitutionality, but the jurisprudence was stabilished since 2003, when supreme tribunal denied (by 8 votes against 3) to release from jail Siegfried Ellwanger, who published nazi books on Brazil. The supreme tribunal already judged this case 20 years ago.

> Not really. Defending the existence of a political party means exactly that: defending its right to exist. If the party then engages in illegal conduct, then that's a separate crime that happens after the party has been officially recognized by the law.

Wrong. The party itself is illegal based on the law against inciting discrimination. Its existence is by itself illegal, as well as defending its creation. If your party explicitly as your main program consist in discriminatory content, it is illegal.

[matheusmoreira]

> You use the free speech to argue for my killing or to share propaganda that incites my discrimination.

Nobody did that though? The only argument that was advanced was: since you allow the radical left (communists), then you must also allow the radical right (nazis).

Nobody ever advocated for your extermination. Nobody ever actually wanted an actual nazi party. The expected reaction was you'd come to your senses and realize that communists need to be treated in the exact same way as nazis. Unfortunately it turned into this fruitless argument.

> "a right is written in constitution" means very little

Looks like you finally got it. That's the point, you know.

> You could argue for unconstitutionality of censoring if people were just being censored, without a previous conflict.

That is what I've been arguing all along.

> If your party explicitly as your main program consist in discriminatory content, it is illegal.

LOL what could possibly be more discriminatory than communists? Genocide, classicide, politicide, democide, mass killings... Just enforced misery in general.

If that's your bar for banishing ideologies, you should probably get started on those communists already because it looks like you have a lot of work to do.

[thiagoharry]

Your main objective appears to be inserting McCarthist ideology in the discussion. No, you do not censor Christianity because inquisition killed in the past. Nor do you censor capitalism because capitalists did mass killings in Indonesia. You censor nazism, not exactly because it killed, like practically any other "ism", but because its core tenets are exactly about discrimination: "some ethnical groups are better than others". The same is not true for Christianism, capitalism or communism.

[matheusmoreira]

Yes, my main objective is discussing the current communist threat in my country, not discussing some long gone defeated political party. The only reason it was brought up to begin with was for the sake of argument. The idea was to get you to realize that you need to treat communists the same way.

Obviously it didn't work because, as it turns out, your argument for censorship is not actually utilitarian. I could actually accept, and indeed have accepted, such an argument. That's not what you're saying though. You don't support censorship of nazism because the ideology is destructive. If that was the case, you'd also support the banishment of other ideas which are just as destructive if not more so. You've made it clear that you don't.

No, you support censorship because you literally believe nazism is wrongthink. You believe this when it comes to nazism specifically. It doesn't apply to any other equally or more destructive ideologies because they just don't contain the wrongthink you consider unacceptable. Communists pay you some lip service to political correctness and they have total free reign to wreak havoc in our society no matter how subversive they are.

If that's your position then that's the end of this discussion since there's nothing more I can say. I do hope you change your mind one day. There's nothing more totalitarian than believing in wrongthink.