Except this is a comment section for discussion, so it's appropriate to discuss and point out this issue which IMHO contaminates nearly all forms of media today.
> Not saying dang never blocks users/comments, but it's exceedingly rare and I've only seen it for the most obnoxiously egregious behavior after (usually multiple) warnings.
Issuing warnings or reminding people of the guidelines (rules) is also part of being a moderator, so the moniker is perfectly cromulent to describe dang's role
Article 287 is in the Penal Code, not in the Constitution. The constitution is the top dog in the legal hierarchy. The Penal Code is pretty high up there and trumps thinks like local laws.
Some laws are written in such a way that, eventually, when put to the test and being presented to the Supreme Court, which judges matters of constitutionality, they may indeed be declared void for being unconstitutional. That has never happened for article 287 of the penal code, although it may one day. You'd need an actual case to make that claim, though.
There are no "superiors", except for the constitution.
The law as written doesn't take into account whether the Supreme Court judges are corrupt or politically appointed/influenced. The law spells out what "ought to be", not what "is".
Don't ignore the "or a fine". A situation like you described doesn't commonly result in any jail time (or in any fine, tbh)
Besides, I'd wager even if the whole state hated you, you would clearly be protected in that specific scenario by article 5 of the constitution, which trumps the penal code or other ordinary laws:
IX - are free the expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific and communication, regardless of censorship or license;
I think you're touching on various different issues like fraud, false advertising, racism, etc. so there's no clear answer. You would need to pick a specific case for someone to weigh in on.
It's not a particularly well-written article, but it does lay out the key article from the constitution (article 5) and the various articles in the penal code and the anti-racism law (which is a specific law!) regarding freedom of speech.
Additionally, Article 3, paragraph 4 of the Constitution is key. It's placement at the very top of the constitution, if not legally meaningful, feels politically meaningful to me:
Art. 3 The fundamental objectives of the Federative Republic of Brazil are:
I. to build a free, just and unified society;
II. to guarantee national development;
III. to eradicate poverty and substandard living conditions and to reduce social and regional inequalities;
IV. to promote the well-being of all, without prejudice as to origin, race, sex, color, age and any other forms of discrimination.
So the proof of the pudding to me as a layman is whether whatever form of speech you used qualifies as "prejudice as to origin, race, sex, color, age and any other forms of discrimination"
> All of human progress has happened through open discussion; i thought this was obvious. We gain immunity to bad ideas by hearing them within public areas where people can argue for and against them honestly. This leads to people gaining/learning good ideas because they more often defeat bad ideas. Leading to a more progressive society. Ban bad ideas in public and people become vulnerable to them in private.
Brazilian Law doesn't preclude you from having actual intellectual discussions about any topic. There are limits to hate speech, harassment, bullying, etc. There is no real benefit from having bigots spew hatred openly in society. In fact, giving them the opportunity to promote intolerance tends to breed more intolerance. This has been the case with nazis, QAnon, extreme right more generally in the US, Bolsominions in Brazil... We cannot be tolerant of intolerance. Curtailing speech is a "necessary harm" to prevent a bigger harm from occurring, which is the curtailment of life.
> This is not a cogent argument; The vast majority of discrimination is not verbal, in fact the verbal bit isn't generally discrimination at all but a signal that discrimination may be happening.. suppress the signal and you can generally keep the discrimination.
I appreciate the discussion but unfortunately that's not logical. Specifically, I said:
1. All forms of discrimination are harmful and should be minimized or eliminated.
2. Verbal discrimination is a form of discrimination.
3. Therefore, verbal discrimination should be minimized or eliminated.
You're saying
1. The majority of discrimination is non-verbal.
2. Verbal discrimination often signals non-verbal discrimination.
3. If a form of discrimination is less prevalent or is a signal of another form, it is less important to address.
4. Therefore, it's acceptable to allow verbal discrimination.
But that's a fallacy. Specifically "false dichotomy", in that it implies that addressing one issue (verbal discrimination) precludes or is less important than addressing another (non-verbal discrimination). In reality, both can and should be addressed concurrently.
All forms of discrimination, whether prevalent or indicative, contribute to the overall harm caused by discrimination.
Therefore, even if verbal discrimination is less prevalent or a signal of non-verbal discrimination, it should still be minimized or eliminated alongside other forms of discrimination.
You are specifically arguing that we must allow verbal discrimination because we will be able to combat non-verbal discrimination better. I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that this is the case.
Empirically, Brazil is much less racist than the U.S. for a variety of reasons. If freedom of speech was so important to prevent non-verbal discrimination, it would stand to reason that one such example of a "infinitely free speaking" and "tolerant" society would exist. I can't think of any.
Not to mention the fact that "non-verbal discrimination" is specifically harder to legislate against (or even harder to prove in a courtroom), which explains why it is not as clearly outlawed in the Brazilian constitution.
Another judge decides when you see the judge that will try your case.
> Do I just sit quietly in jail until then?
No, you can have your attorney file an habeas corpus to either have your case tried speedily or have you be released from jail until the court date.
Just because you don't know how the law works doesn't mean others haven't thought about these challenges before and solved them. Ignorance doesn't make your arguments stronger.
> Brazil has been on a slippery slope regarding free speech.
Citation needed. Free speech is not an "unlimited right" in Brazil (I'd argue it's not an unlimited right in the U.S. either, but that's not necessary here)
Article 3 of the 1988 Constitution of Brazil states:
Art. 3 The fundamental objectives of the Federative Republic of Brazil are:
I. to build a free, just and unified society;
II. to guarantee national development;
III. to eradicate poverty and substandard living conditions and to reduce social and regional inequalities;
IV. to promote the well-being of all, without prejudice as to origin, race, sex, color, age and any other forms of discrimination.
---
You can also just read on Wikipedia about this to be better informed... it's literally on the "Freedom of speech in Brazil" article
It is, but it is not the paramount human right. Other rights, like "life" trump "liberty".
One may argue that certain instances of "hate speech" encourage actions against "life" and that the "liberty" of exerting that speech is trumped by the need to protect that life.
If you extend "life" to mean "health" and "health" to include "mental health", than the right to be a raging racist seems pretty obviously below the right for other people to not be attacked or threatened. QED.