[luizcdc]

It really depends. Locally, factions like criminal associations and retired cops mafias (militias), who always have city councelors and mayors in their pockets, may retaliate if someone with an audience is being too annoying (see Marielle Franco's case).

Nationally, not all politicians enjoy any protection from the supreme court against critiscism, only the best connected ones and the supreme court itself. Recently, a former YouTuber who lost all his social accounts and had to self-exile to the US for some disrespectful comments against the supreme court was sentenced to 1.5 years in jail for calling the newest supreme court judge a "fatty".

Except for the supreme court itself, the average Brazilian can voice their concerns and speak up against corruption with very low chances of repercussions if they don't display wholly anti-democratic discourse, like wishing the military to execute a coup.

[vitorgrs]

About the "fatty" one... This is more how richer/powerful people have more resources to sue. The case would be a clearly win for everyone who sue it.

Brazil's penal code criminalize any "Injury" and "defemation"

> Art. 139 - To defame someone, attributing to them a fact that is offensive to their reputation:

> Penalty - detention from three months to one year, and a fine.

> Art. 140 - To insult someone, offending their dignity or decency:

> Penalty - detention from one to six months, or a fine.

[rbanffy]

> a former YouTuber

Remember he also committed the crime, live, on YouTube, of advocating for the creation of a Nazi party.

[matheusmoreira]

Thought crime, huh.

He merely observed that the extreme left has a lot more space in politics than the extreme right. Why is it that nazism is banned while we have so many literal proud self-admitted socialists and communists in this country who not only walk this soil completely unpunished but also form organized parties, get elected, get appointed to the supreme court? The judge who held him guilty for calling him a "fatty" is the perfect example of one.

Anti-nazism laws are unconstitutional. Constitution says that "any and all" censorship of political nature is prohibited. Nazism is a political party. Therefore censorship of nazism is prohibited. It's that simple.

So why is it that nazism is literal thought crime while socialism and communism, far more harmful ideologies, are allowed to flourish with complete impunity? If they're gonna ban nazis, I demand that they also ban communists and socialists. It should be a literal thought crime to advocate for anything related to that nonsense. And any form of socialist organization should get all involved sent straight to jail.

That's the point that was made. Allowing that crap while simultaneously banning nazism is a contradiction. His only "crime" here was trying to resolve the contradiction by arguing that nazis should be allowed to organize. That's not what we really want. What we actually want is these socialists and communists in jail.

[rbanffy]

> Anti-nazism laws are unconstitutional. Constitution says that "any and all" censorship of political nature is prohibited. Nazism is a political party. Therefore censorship of nazism is prohibited. It's that simple.

There’s no censorship. You are allowed to say your mind and nobody can prevent you from doing it. Freedom to do something doesn’t imply impunity for committing crimes in the process of expressing your political beliefs.

> the extreme left

Brazil had a far-right president for four years. There’s zero far-left in mainstream politics in Brazil, unless you slide the Overton window so far to the right social democrats (such as PT) looks far-left and Bolsonaro looks like a moderate right-winger.

[matheusmoreira]

> There’s no censorship.

> Freedom to do something doesn’t imply impunity for committing crimes in the process of expressing your political beliefs.

Those two statements contradict each other. One can't criminalize political beliefs and simultaneously claim that there is no censorship of political beliefs.

The man had his social media presence blocked for his wrongthink. That is censorship.

> There’s zero far-left in mainstream politics in Brazil

There must be dozens of political parties with communism and socialism right in the name. Not social-democracy, not social-anything. Straight up socialist and communist parties. Why is this allowed?

And it's not just the names either, as is often claimed. They are very much socialists in their proposals and public policies. Why are these ideas allowed to spread and proliferate?

[rbanffy]

> Those two statements contradict each other.

No. Censorship is preventing you from saying something. Arresting you for committing a crime is not censorship. Germany is a democracy where you’ll land in jail for defending the creation of a nazi party. Is that censorship?

> with communism and socialism right in the name.

Is anyone actually proposing the abolition of private property and the seizure of the means of production by the proletariat?

[matheusmoreira]

> Censorship is preventing you from saying something.

That's exactly what happened. His channel was blocked by order of a judge. Censorship.

> Arresting you for committing a crime is not censorship.

Criminalizing any form of political idea absolutely is political censorship. The whole purpose of heavily punishing crimes is to prevent said crimes from occurring. Punishing certain political positions is therefore equivalent to preventing said political positions from being expressed.

If we're gonna stoop to this tyranny, then I'm gonna start enumerating a whole slew of equally harmful or even worse ideas for the tyrant's perusal. Let's start with the complete erasure of socialism and communism and everything related to it, and the incarceration of every single subversive person involved with it.

Why censor nazis but not these communists? Makes absolutely no sense. If they censor nazis but refuse to censor these socialists whose dictatorial regimes have genocided their own populations, I'm gonna start drawing some very uncomfortable conclusions about the way the world works.

> Germany is a democracy where you’ll land in jail for defending the creation of a nazi party. Is that censorship?

I'm sure everybody feels righteous about banning nazis. The problem is that banning nazis is unconstitutional here in Brazil. Nazis are just a political party, the national-socialist worker's party, ironically. And in Brazil, any and all forms of political censorship is prohibited.

I have no idea what the german constitution says. Maybe it is constitutional there.

From a moral standpoint, though, I see no reason to believe it's not censorship. Plenty of consumer media depicting nazism needs to be "adapted" in order to be published in Germany. That's China tier protection against harmful ideas as far as I'm concerned. I certainly consider it to be censorship. I have no idea whether german law considers it so.

> Is anyone actually proposing the abolition of private property and the seizure of the means of production by the proletariat?

Lula has literally recorded himself saying the state should seize people's inheritances and then determine "what people need to survive" so that it can give them exactly that.

These guys are socialists and communists, there is absolutely no doubt about it. I have no idea why I have to prove this every single time. They're pretty proud of being what they are.