[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.