(no title)
andrenth | 1 year ago
> All your interpretation and from some of jurists that you cite is that the attacks that Brazilian institutions suffered, like the attacks caused by digital militias during the Bolsonaro government were not serious coordinated attacks against the rule of law and against the tribunal.
Oh yes, the grave attacks of people talking on twitter. The Brazilian institutions suffered so much.
> Saying that "Brazil is dictatorship" just because you have a divergent interpretation is ridiculous.
Brazil is a dictatorship because its own Supreme Court disrespects the constitution, censors elected congressmen and journalists without due process (see Twitter Files Brazil), arrests people with without due process, withdraws access to case files to defense attorneys... the list goes on.
> You replicate the arguments in far right groups
Yes, the former Republic Attorney General, a well known far right extremist.
> This is just a term used in media
The exact term is used in the opening of the wildcard illegal inquiry.
> If I threaten to kill all judges in Brazil, and create a plan to do so, according with you, I cannot be judged because any judge would also be victim in my crime?
You think this is some sort of slam dunk argument but it is so juvenile that it shouldn't even deserve a thoughtful reply. You create a fantasy scenario where there's no specific victim ("threaten all judges in Brazil") that is obviously so absurd that such a threat shouldn't even be considered seriously. In the case of an actual crime, where a number of judges are victims, one would expect that investigations are carried out by the Federal Prosecution Service, not by the judges themselves, and that the case would be judged different judges, not the victims themselves.
> The fact is that there are cases where the STF has power to act
This is the core of the problem. The Supreme Court has the power to do whatever it wants, without limits. It is also a political court that is, in their own words, adversarial against right wing thought, and to defeat the right wing they will not be limited by the rule of law.
> Moreover, nobody is being at the same time judge and prosecutor
You cannot be serious.
matheusmoreira|1 year ago
Reached the same conclusion as you just did. When I get into these discussions, I end up feeling like I'm getting gaslit. Stuff happened, I saw it happen but the other guy just keeps insisting it didn't happen until the end of time. I'm honestly not even sure if it's deliberate or not.
Reductio ad absurdum is the only viable response.
thiagoharry|1 year ago
Not censorship. Brazilian law allows you to remove content in case of criminal investigation, threatenings, unbased defamation....
> arrests people with without due process, withdraws access to case files to defense attorneys
> You think this is some sort of slam dunk argument but it is so juvenile that it shouldn't even deserve a thoughtful reply.
It's not mine, its your argument. You says that people that attacks or theatens STF judge cannot be judged by them, even in the context that the law allows it. According with you, if the presidents enters in STF and try to shoot the judges, nobody should judge him, as the law says that STF should judge this situation, but the STF minister were the targeted victims.
> This is the core of the problem. The Supreme Court has the power to do whatever it wants, without limits. I
It is not acting without limits. Contrary to your narrative nobody is being just censored. People are being charged with real accusations, like threatening other people, attempt against the rule of law, etc. This is just blatant lie.
andrenth|1 year ago
The law allows that under certain conditions, yes. Are these conditions being met? No. It’s being used as a political weapon in a crusade of the Supreme Court against certain political beliefs.
When you have rules that are selectively applied by a political court, it is censorship.
How many people on the left have been investigated for threatening or defaming a right wing politician since the inquiry was opened?
> You says that people that attacks or theatens STF judge cannot be judged by them, even in the context that the law allows it.
There is no law that allows it. There is an internal regiment, which the newer 1988 constitution contradicts. But even if you ignore that, the regiment very clearly defines under which conditions the Supreme Court itself can open an inquiry, that is, crimes that happen within the premises of the court. That requirement was clearly not satisfied, so the court invented a new “interpretation” that considers things that happen on the internet to be within its premises.
> It is not acting without limits.
Yes it is, as I have explained multiple times. Bypassing jurisdiction, coming up with convenient “interpretations” that give them more power, mass incarceration of people without formal accusation, denying defense attorneys access to court papers, requiring content to be taken offline without due process, and so on.
You cannot bend the law to go after people you don’t like. That’s not how democracy works.