(no title)
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.
thiagoharry|1 year ago
Ok, now you need to prove that the conditions are not being met. As the prosecutors in each case will present the proofs for each case when the inquiry becomes a criminal case.
> How many people on the left have been investigated for threatening or defaming a right wing politician since the inquiry was opened?
Perhaps, the secret for not being condemned is not commit crimes...? Is the left also trying a coup or created digital militias to spread disinformation and threats like the far right...?
> 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.
The court interpretation was not challenged by AGU and PGR (https://g1.globo.com/politica/noticia/2020/06/10/agu-e-pgr-d...). Even if you were the authority selected by democratic governments to interpret the law, which you are not, following your interpretation, the other entities that should open the inquiry all agreed with the inquiry.
> mass incarceration of people without formal accusation,
Trying to abolish the rule of law, armed criminal association, vandalism, destruction of historical items are not serious accusations enough...? All them were jailed in flagrant. If you kill someone and is captured on the act, you will be jailed on flagrant, you cannot escape this trying to defend yourself saying that "nobody opened yet a formal accusation". The formal accusation will be opened, but we had a flagrant crime.
andrenth|1 year ago
If a crime was committed, why wasn't it disclosed?
Right now we’ve had requests for accounts of congressman and journalists to be blocked. Notice this isn’t content being taken down. They were forbidden to express themselves in the social network platforms. Even if you make the case they posted “illegal content” (still waiting for the definition of this), it’s not that this content was removed. The state asked the platforms to block every future content they may post. Is that future content also illegal? What is this, Minority Report?
Moreover, no reason was specified for the blocking. The platforms were requested to comply with removal of content in under 2 hours and to pretend it was being done due to violation of their terms of service.
They even notified Rumble, which has no office in Brazil. Does the Brazilian Supreme Court jurisdiction cover the whole world?
> Perhaps, the secret for not being condemned is not commit crimes...?
What crimes? You still have not listed a single one. And you can’t, because the political actions of the court are being done under secrecy. In fact, even the defense attorneys do not know, because the case files are being kept from them. Is this what you call rule of law?
> Is the left also trying a coup
The left has practiced similar acts of vandalism multiple times, but when the left does it it’s not a coup attempt, it’s a “fight for rights and democracy” (example: [1] — notice: with the direct participation of a far-left politician that is now a candidate for mayor of São Paulo).
You keep forgetting that this inquiry preceded the events of January 8th, so by simple logic, those events cannot be used as justification for the inquiry.
> or created digital militias to spread disinformation and threats like the far right...?
Uhm, yes. [2,3,4,5,6]
> The court interpretation was not challenged by AGU and PGR
Your own link says they have required “clear parameters”.
“We just need markers so that the object is not changing [variable]”, argued Aras. The PGR asked the Supreme Court “so that the object [of the investigation] is carried out in a delimited manner and that invasive measures are previously submitted to the accusatory system and that the Public Prosecution Service can receive the attention of rapporteur Alexandre de Moraes and other rapporteurs in other inquiries.”
Have the requested boundaries been implemented? No. The Public Prosecution Service request was once again ignored, just as in 2019 when the Attorney General requested the archival of the inquiry due to its unconstitutionality.
> Trying to abolish the rule of law, armed criminal association, vandalism, destruction of historical items are not serious accusations enough...?
Some people were arrested far away from the vandalism site, while peacefully protesting, with no formal accusation and are still in jail. Uber drivers who were taking people to the protests were arrested. Street sellers who were selling Brazilian flags at the day were arrested. Children were sent to jail with their parents. Even fucking dogs were sent to prison.
How many people were sent to jail after the far-left attack on government buildings in 2015? Zero.
The rule of law in Brazil has already been abolished, but not by who you think.
[1]https://m.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2015/09/1685307-mtst-invade...
[2]https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/poder/po1810201110.htm
[3]https://veja.abril.com.br/politica/milicia-digital-do-pt-gan...
[4]https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/republica/milicias-digitais-...
[5]https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/amp/poder/2023/05/grupo-de-inf...
[6]https://oglobo.globo.com/google/amp/politica/noticia/2023/10...