[matheusmoreira]

You seem to think this is some kind of valid excuse for the judge-king's behavior. In fact it only makes it worse. You do realize that, in the course of prohibiting censorship, the constitution makes it a point to explicitly mention political censorship, right?

I couldn't care less what the goal of the documentary was. I witnessed these judges censor it and as far as I'm concerned censorship equals dictatorship. It's that simple. If they did it with political motivations, that only makes it worse.

And I don't care for the judge-king's censorship of "misinformation" either. I'll judge for myself, thank you very much. I don't need his "help" to determine right from wrong. He's been doing this ministry of truth thing for around half a decade already and it's seriously tiresome. This is the same guy who censored accusations of communism against Lula, a self-admitted socialist. Censored the people who associated him with his dictator friends, and then we had to watch him roll out the red carpet for the Venezuelan one.

[chbint]

> I couldn't care less what the goal of the documentary was. (...) And I don't care for the judge-king's censorship of "misinformation" either. I'll judge for myself, thank you very much.

But the Brazilian constitution does care for both these things.

That's why it requires special care during the elections in order to prevent abuse. What's at stake is a principle you find in every liberal thinker since modern times, and that grounds most (if not all) democratic constitutions worldwide: If there's no fire in a crowded theater, one can't shout "Congressman X started a fire! Run!", incite people to leave in a hurry and later claim that "I was just manifesting my political opinion, people were free to ignore and judge the situation for themselves", as if you were not expecting their panic and the risks associated with crowds in panic. You're responsible for whatever ensues, and if this kind of behavior can be preempted, it must be. Or so thinks pretty much every democratic country in the world, not just Brazil.

If we judge by the rule you mention, this would be censorship. That would mean there's probably no country in the world that could be considered democratic (even the so called "absolute" US freedom of speech is something of a myth, for there are lots of decisions from the US Supreme Court that would be deemed "dictatorial" according to the criterion you present here).

Bottom line is: Brazil lives under the rule of a democratic constitution built after much fight against real dictatorship and real censorship, not the rule suggested by you here (which, again, absolutely no country in the world lives by). You're free to disagree with the basic liberal and democratic principles grounding the Brazilian constitution, but whenever you and the constitution disagree, bear in mind that it is the constitution's point of view that's going to prevail.

[matheusmoreira]

Where in the constitution does it say that you can engage in censorship of any kind, let alone political? Here's what it says, translated verbatim:

> Any and all censorship of political, ideological and artistic nature is prohibited.

That's what it literally says. It doesn't say you can maybe kinda sorta censor people if your cause is righteous enough. It doesn't say you can do it if it's fake news. So where is this disagreement you speak of? I can't seem to find it. I'm no lawyer but I've asked my lawyer friends and they couldn't find it either.

And nobody is shouting fire in a crowded theater. It's just some obviously biased documentary. Hilariously, that means it's of an artistic, ideological and political nature, all three of the categories explicitly singled out by the constitution. Whatever distorted logic they used to censor it must have been hierarchically inferior to the constitution, and therefore invalid.

I'm using the same logic that allowed US citizens to publish and export cryptography software by printing source code in a book. This is technology was literally export controlled for national security reasons. Cryptography has the power to defeat these judges, it has the power to defeat armies. There are few things in existence that are more subversive than democratized access to cryptography. And they used free speech to publish the source code. Their fight is a big reason why you're browsing this site with HTTPS enabled today. So don't compare distorted brazilian notions of free speech to american ones. They sure as hell have a lot more free speech than we do.

[chbint]

> Where in the constitution does it say that you can engage in censorship of any kind, let alone political?

Brazilian law does not consider preempting someone from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater a case of censorship. AFAIK, no democratic country would, for all recognize that freedom implies responsibility. Same goes for those trying to shout, without any evidence, "B's adversaries ordered his killing!" (or something similar) 6 days before the election day, even though they are trying to make it look like a "documentary".

> I'm using the same logic that allowed US citizens to publish and export cryptography software by printing source code in a book. This is technology was literally export controlled for national security reasons. (...) And they used free speech to publish the source code (...). So don't compare distorted brazilian notions of free speech to american ones. They sure as hell have a lot more free speech than we do.

Beautiful story. You should tell Snowden. Maybe he'll realize that he didn't need to go into exile in Russia.

[matheusmoreira]

How could they possibly know what the work said? They censored it before it was published. No arguments based on its contents could possibly have been made. It was censored a priori. You make it sound like these ministers watched this thing and determined it was out of line. That's not what happened.

I'd me more accepting of your argument if the documentary had been published and censored after the fact. It wasn't. They preemptively censored the work.

[chbint]

Judges were aware of what the producers themselves claimed the content to be and how the content was being promoted. There were clear references to the elections and to people involved in the elections. Moreover, It's not like members of the electoral court decided to bother the producers out the blue. There was a denounce that the producers were abusing their economic power during the election (which is illegal). Evidence and hearings involving their lawyers were conducted, and that's where and how the judges became aware of everything.

What you have, thus, is a scenario in which 1) the producers were already being investigated for electoral misconduct; 2) they were known supporters of B; and 3) they were boosting and promoting B.'s campaign material in social media disguised as "news" and "documentaries" (which is a way of trying to dodge the accusation of economic power abuse). The case in question is just an acute one.

And even in the face of all this, authorities didn't outright ban the release, but delayed it until after the election (about a week), effectively preventing misuse without imposing censorship.

[matheusmoreira]

> Judges were aware of what the producers themselves claimed the content to be and how the content was being promoted.

> Evidence and hearings involving their lawyers were conducted, and that's where and how the judges became aware of everything.

Still a priori censorship. Lawyers obviously could not have watched it either. Or are you claiming the promotions and producer claims were themselves outright defamatory?

> There were clear references to the elections and to people involved in the elections.

Not a problem. As far as I'm concerned the political nature of the work should enhance the protections afforded to the work, not justify its censorship.

> abusing their economic power

That's the same arbitrary nonsense they slapped Google with when it added a link about the proposed "fake news" law to their website. Literally guilty because the message was too effective and they didn't like it.

That's a law which was rejected by our elected representatives and which these judges rammed down our throats anyway via monocratic electoral court "resolutions", by the way.

> 1) the producers were already being investigated for electoral misconduct

By an obviously partial judge. I don't accept that for a second.

> 2) they were known supporters of B; and 3) they were boosting and promoting B.'s campaign material in social media disguised as "news" and "documentaries"

Not a problem. Just citizens exercising their right to free expression.

> authorities didn't outright ban the release, but delayed it until after the election (about a week), effectively preventing misuse without imposing censorship

They censored the work until it didn't matter anymore. Temporary censorship is still censorship.

[meiraleal]

There is a documentary about the stabbing made from a left-wing news blog that was also censured and a lot of people got mad.

[matheusmoreira]

I didn't know about it. If that's true, then count me among the ones who are offended by such censorship. I don't defend censorship of the left even when it's convenient for me.