[EuAndreh]

From the same article:

> Brazil’s Supreme Court has drastically expanded its power to counter the antidemocratic stances of Mr. Bolsonaro and his supporters.

The title is a leading question. I can come up with different titles for the same article or topic, that could be leading somewhere else:

1. Brazil Top Court's Actions to Defend Democracy

2. A View On Moraes' Decisions In Face Of The Crisis Created By Bolsonaro

3. Brazil's Supreme Court Reaction After The Presidency Went Too Far

---

A legitimate question I have is:

What other institutions (or democratic tools) should have acted to halt the extremist anti-democratic movement lead by Bolsonaro?

(Not a trick question, an honest one given the crisis)

[geertj]

> What other institutions (or democratic tools) should have acted to halt the extremist anti-democratic movement lead by Bolsonaro?

I am not familiar with Bolsonaro's movement, but censoring people under the guise of protecting democracy doesn't seem very democratic to me? At the very least, you have to admit here that there is a slippery slope where a good intentioned government or justice system could progressively get further away from these good intentions, and start using its power merely for the preservation of it?

It seems to me that censoring ideas that seem dangerous is far more dangerous than trying to correct them, and that a very high level of free speech is one of the most powerful antidotes against this slippery slope.

[39896880]

It seems that way to me too, but we have examples of high-censorship, high-freedom societies like Germany, and high-censorship, low-freedom societies like Singapore, and both report high levels of happiness.

The devil really is in the details.

[gchamonlive]

> there is a slippery slope where a good intentioned government or justice system could progressively get further away from these good intentions, and start using its power merely for the preservation of it?

That wasn't what happened.

It's not like we had a left leaning judge favouring a left leaning party, it's Moraes, a conservative technician fight an extreme right antidemocratic movement.

The question that needs to be answer is how far democracy is willing to go outside of democratic bounds to preserve itself. Because to expect a democratic government never to act undemocratically is to expect it to be replaced by a fascists regimen given time.

[meiraleal]

Censoring isn't the same as investigating the use of bots and fake news to spread rumors and lies for polítics gain and literal profit. The right tries to confuse people by mixing their crimes with free speech.

[eecc]

Well your question leads straight to the “Paradox of Intolerance”.

It’s indeed tricky, but the sorting criteria is: once in power, would these people club me to death, or let go of power if they lost a free election?

[skywhopper]

There’s also a slippery slope where good intentions of protecting “free speech” at all costs enable an anti-democratic authoritarian takeover or worse.

Not to say I know which this is, or a better way to balance things, but free speech absolutism over all other considerations is not always the right answer to protect free speech and democracy.

[dmix]

There's always a new excuse to take away peoples right or aggressively censor things. "This time is different" "It's just an exceptional situation" etc they say every time until the next time.

[highcountess]

They’re taking your human rights away from you for your own good, my friend. They guide rails. Just don’t act out or say or think anything they don’t like and they won’t beat you because they love you.

[brigadier132]

You can't claim to be defending people's rights while also jailing people without trial.

[chbint]

Indeed, but no one is doing that.

In Brazil there's what we call "preventive custody". If you're caught committing a crime, and if there is a risk that you could jeopardize the investigations (by eliminating evidence, threatening or influencing witnesses, etc.), then you are held in custody until the investigation is concluded.

I don't believe you would find something very different going on in any other democratic country.

[immibis]

What if the people being jailed are urgently trying to take away people's rights?

Also, what's supposed to happen to criminals before they are on trial? Normally they get jailed.

[jalapenos]

If you have to censor your opposition it's an admission they've made points you can't refute.

The solution is to bring some smarter people into your movement with better counterarguments. Often those counterarguments are going to have to include some minor concessions and soul searching. Maybe your side has gotten complacent and drifted in its beliefs away from the sensible. Maybe you're become equal but opposite to those you call awful.

I.e. produce new ideas that resonate better than theirs and they'll disappear like a fart in the wind.

[makeitdouble]

Being tolerant of absolutely everything in the name of tolerance is a trap, and it's bound to fall into an extreme state. That creates an asymmetric battle where one side can attack from every angle while the other is bound to a rigid set of well known rules.

In practice you can't maintain a viable situation with absolutes: absolute democracy doesn't work, absolute freedom of speech doesn't work. You need boundaries, and it also means intervening through alternative ways when your usual tools can't deal with a situation.

[HDThoreaun]

No one is saying the court shouldnt defend democracy. We're saying that censorship is not the way to do that.

[chbint]

What we're facing here is a distinction between US and BR law (actually, US is the exception world wide, for Brazil law is closer to what you would find in Europe on this matter).

In Brazil, it's not a crime to say what you think. But it is a crime to falsely claim that someone has committed a crime. This is especially serious if you are influential on social media and your statement, even if false, is likely to generate dangerous reactions from your followers.

[lrem]

Seems to have worked pretty well in Europe. Many countries here ban praise of past mistakes.

[marcosdumay]

Justice persecutors, that sit on the fence between the Judiciary and the Executive (but are nominally in the Judiciary) should be the ones starting those actions. The federal police should be the ones feeding information for them to act on.

On the case where Alexandre de Moraes is the victim, it should have been judged by a normal regional court, first by a judge and then by a panel of 3. In case it ever reaches his court, he should have sent it to somebody else (decided by a draw).

In no situation a court should be commanding a police investigation.

[anigbrowl]

Is this more in line with Brazil's legal tradition, or are you arguing this from within a different jurisdiction?

[ufo]

In theory, Bolsonaro's actions should have gotten him impeached a long time ago. However, congress was more than happy to keep a "weak" president in power, because it allowed them to grab more power from the executive branch. It's no surprise that the percentage of the budget allocated to "earmarks" ballooned during the Bolsonaro administration.

[naasking]

> What other institutions (or democratic tools) should have acted to halt the extremist anti-democratic movement lead by Bolsonaro?

I find the notion of fighting extremism with more extremism dubious. The legitimacy of the government derives from the consent of the people. If the people voted for Bolsonaro and are not opposing his actions, the judiciary will not be able to stop the slide, their extreme actions only give him fuel.

[edgyquant]

“defend democracy” has become a rhetorical device unrelated to actually doing so. Expanding your power and censoring people is tyrannical no matter what spin you put on it. And tyrants always have a spin, no one ever says I’m looking to end democracy.

[wtcactus]

> What other institutions (or democratic tools) should have acted to halt the extremist anti-democratic movement lead by Bolsonaro?

To start, the fallacy here, is to assume there was indeed an "extremist anti-democratic movement led by Bolsonaro".

[matheusmoreira]

> What other institutions (or democratic tools) should have acted to halt the extremist anti-democratic movement lead by Bolsonaro?

None.

There is no "anti-democratic" movement here. To be against democracy, you need to actually be living within a democracy. Unfortunately, Brazil is not a democracy. Brazil is a judiciary dictatorship.

These unelected judge-kings run this nation. They have been running it for years. They're basically gods here. Untouchable. Their powers have been expanding continuously. In the months leading up to the elections, it got to the point they started disregarding the brazilian constitution and engaging in blatant political censorship. And their power keeps expanding.

What's more anti-democratic than a bunch of unelected judges doing whatever they want? This is the real coup.

If Bolsonaro intended to do anything, it was in reaction to this sorry state of affairs, and I don't blame him for trying at all. I blame him for failing.

[lobocinza]

What extremist anti-democratic movement lead by Bolsonaro? The guy was president during pandemics with strong popular and military support. The facts are that he had the bread and the knife and yet no coup was attempted while he was in power.

Bolsonaro is a straw man used by the extreme left which currently is in power to justify an institutional authoritarian escalation. And this escalation was happening long before Bolsonaro.

[dakial1]

This is a catch 22, because Bolsonaro team was using social media and fake news to move dumb masses towards their objective, pretty similar to Trump in the US. The judge in question, with his despotic tendencies, was in an open war against Bolsonaro (started by Bolsonaro) and stretched the powers of the judiciary to bring Bolsonaro down. Now, we have 2 wrongs here. But how one should react to all of this?

[eric_cc]

> fake news to move dumb masses towards their objective, pretty similar to Trump in the US

How can you prove that you’re not a member of the “dumb masses” being fooled by the fake news?