[carlossouza]

Negative.

The point is not that he shouldn’t be allowed to unilaterally ban social media accounts.

The point is that he shouldn’t be allowed to do that in secrecy, without providing any public justification, and not respecting the right of the accused to defend themselves.

People are getting silenced without knowing why they are getting silenced, and without proper due process/right to respond.

[mrkstu]

Yep, you don't 'save' democracy by trampling on its traditions.

[noizejoy]

> you don't 'save' democracy by trampling on its traditions.

It’s maybe not that simple:

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

[smsm42]

Of course, it's ok to persecute my opponents, because they are the intolerant bad people, but it's not ok to prosecute me, because I am extremely tolerant and only prosecute my opponents, who, as we already established, are bad people and are ok to prosecute.

[diegoholiveira]

You’re interpreting it wrongly.

[lobocinza]

Popper's proposed remedy isn't a carte blanche for institutional censorship. Some excerpts from Popper's book that those who cite the paradox of tolerance typically ignore:

"I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise."

"All these paradoxes can easily be avoided if we frame our political demands in the way suggested in section ii of this chapter, or perhaps in some such manner as this. We demand a government that rules according to the principles of equalitarianism and protectionism; that tolerates all who are prepared to reciprocate, i.e. who are tolerant; that is controlled by, and accountable to, the public. And we may add that some form of majority vote, together with institutions for keeping the public well informed, is the best, though not infallible, means of controlling such a government. (No infallible means exist.)"

Notes: By equalitarianism he meant the classic liberal notion of equal rights to everyone. By protectionism he meant that the state should ensure people's rights (protect people).

What the Brazilian supreme court is doing is the opposite, it's unaccountable and widespread censorship by non-elected judges.

And what if both side in this dispute "bolsonaristas" and "petistas" are intolerant?

Personally I saw worst cases of intolerance from "petistas" than from "bolsonaristas". Like accusing me of being a "bolsonarista" just because I didn't agree with his extremist political or was wearing and green & yellow shirt. Like leftists openly inciting violence against those they disagree with and receiving praises from their peers.

The worst I received from "bolsonaristas" was being called a "communist" (which I'm not and deem offensive). And ironically the groups they are mostly intolerant towards (besides leftists) are criminals, corrupt politicians, pedophiles (those that are intolerant). Were "petistas" are typically intolerant towards businessmen, policemen, Christians (specially from evangelic congregations), the wealthy and famous (but only those that don't share their views lol). But despite all the majority of "bolsonaristas" and "petistas" aren't bad, just normal people brainwashed with vicious ideologies.

[braiamp]

Where in the Brazilian constitution you have right to access Twitter or any platform for that matter?

[throwaway3298]

From https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constitui...

"IV - é livre a manifestação do pensamento, sendo vedado o anonimato;"

"IX - é livre a expressão da atividade intelectual, artística, científica e de comunicação, independentemente de censura ou licença;"

You can see translated versions under "Art 5" here: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017

[marcosdumay]

You know, during the entire 90s when the people that wrote it were around, they used to say that the Article 5 said this. But nowadays it's consensus over all the influential judges that it doesn't and only registered journalists can say things, and only congresspeople can have their opinions. So, who knows...

Anyway, it still says that decisions should be informed to the punished party and people should be able to defend themselves in a court.