1 edit
Here's my quick take on it.
Lula, the socialist, had been tried and convicted of money laundering and corruption but the trial was later nullified.
In the election, they saw a tidal wave of conservative pols into the bicameral National Congress but NOT THE PRESIDENT!
This sounds quite suspicious. Certainly one should have the right to discuss it, the Philistines., Jeezus.
Corrupt as the day is long.
@metal-brain saidYou don’t comprehend. Read it again.
Are you claiming I can cherry pick without correction?
That is what debates are for. You can cherry pick just as easily as anybody else and you often do. Are you claiming you are the only one that should be able to cherry pick?
If you cannot make your point you are not really debating, are you?
Cherry picking is so common what are you going to do, appeal to RHP to censor cherry pickers? You are sillier than silly.
@earl-of-trumps saidSo every time an ultra right fascist dictator type loses an election we need to have an autopsy on the assumption that it’s fixed, gotcha
Here's my quick take on it.
Lula, the socialist, had been tried and convicted of money laundering and corruption but the trial was later nullified.
In the election, they saw a tidal wave of conservative pols into the bicameral National Congress but NOT THE PRESIDENT!
This sounds quite suspicious. Certainly one should have the right to discuss it, the Philistines., Jeezus.
Corrupt as the day is long.
Bolsanaro didn’t discuss it, he cried foul and sent his Neo Nazi stormtroopers to smash up the capital and bring the country to the point of anarchy in the hope that his pals in the military would declare marshal law and put him back in presidents office against the will of the people, sound familiar.
You libertarians are odd fruit indeed
The whole point of freedom of political speech is that you pretty much get to make whatever claims you want and if you think the other guy is full of BS, then you explain to the public why.
If Bolsonaro is a liar, then the remedy is to explain to the public why and then beat him.
To use the justice system to stop a political opponent because of claims he makes (regardless of what those claims are) is prima facie antithetical to the concept of freedom of political speech.
@sh76 saidThe issue is not spreading election lies it was using abusing his government power to do so.
The whole point of freedom of political speech is that you pretty much get to make whatever claims you want and if you think the other guy is full of BS, then you explain to the public why.
If Bolsonaro is a liar, then the remedy is to explain to the public why and then beat him.
To use the justice system to stop a political opponent because of claims he makes (regardless of what those claims are) is prima facie antithetical to the concept of freedom of political speech.
@vivify saidLet's do an exercise.
You've cherry-picked parts of this story.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/brazil-jair-bolsonaro-barred-running-office-electronic-voting-court-rcna92160
[quote]Far-right former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro was barred Friday from running for office again until 2030 after a panel of judges concluded that he abused his power and cast unfounded doubts on the country’ ...[text shortened]... ed:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-56326389
Get your facts right before posting.
True or false:
Spreading propaganda, by its very definition, is protected political speech.
@vivify said===Alexandre de Moraes, a Brazilian Supreme Court justice, said that the court’s ruling effectively snuffs out “populism reborn from the flames of hateful, antidemocratic speech that promotes heinous disinformation.”===
The issue is not spreading election lies it was using abusing his government power to do so.
Now, granted, that's a nut job site, so they may have just made up the quote.
But assuming the quote is accurate, to use the justice system to silence even "populism reborn from the flames of hateful, antidemocratic speech that promotes heinous disinformation" is antithetical to free speech principles.
@sh76 saidPropaganda is legal; the methods used to spread it might not be.
Let's do an exercise.
True or false:
Spreading propaganda, by its very definition, is protected political speech.
Trump withheld military funding to Ukraine in order to pressure them to publicly throw dirt on his political opponent. That's not "protected political speech".
Likewise, Bolsonaro abusing his presidential powers to spread propaganda is not protected.
@vivify saidFrom the NY Times:
Propaganda is legal; the methods used to spread it might not be.
Trump withheld military funding to Ukraine in order to pressure them to publicly throw dirt on his political opponent. That's not "protected political speech".
Likewise, Bolsonaro abusing his presidential powers to spread propaganda is not protected.
Brazilian election officials on Friday blocked former President Jair Bolsonaro from seeking public office until 2030, removing a top contender from the next presidential contest and dealing a significant blow to the country’s far-right movement.
Brazil’s electoral court ruled that Mr. Bolsonaro had violated Brazil’s election laws when, less than three months ahead of last year’s vote, he called diplomats to the presidential palace and made baseless claims that the nation’s voting systems were likely to be rigged against him.
Five of the court's seven judges voted that Mr. Bolsonaro had abused his power as president when he convened the meeting with diplomats and broadcast it on state television.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/world/americas/bolsonaro-brazil-banned-office.html
The abuse of power was that he "he called diplomats to the presidential palace" and "when he convened the meeting with diplomats and broadcast it on state television"?
Seems like a pretty skimpy fig leaf to me.
Face it: This is about punishing the content of what he said. Calling in diplomats to make a speech and making a speech on TV is not something anyone would ever call out if the content were less controversial.
@sh76 saidNo. From the NBC link I posted on the first page of this thread:
The abuse of power was that he "he called diplomats to the presidential palace" and "when he convened the meeting with diplomats and broadcast it on state television"?
Bolsonaro used government staffers, the state television channel and the presidential palace in Brasilia to tell foreign ambassadors that the country’s electronic voting system was rigged.
The Brazilian court found he illegally directed government staff to spread election lies, as well as used state media and government facilities to do so. In addition:
https://www.ft.com/content/433b599a-441a-49a3-900d-b7fa680d930f
The court also accepted into evidence a draft document found in January in the home of Bolsonaro’s justice minister, Anderson Torres, that outlined steps to overturn the result of the election. The court said the document showed a broader strategy to cast doubt on the electoral system.
This wasn't just Bolsonaro expressing an opinion. Evidence showed he actively plotted to overturn the election. The court ruled that using government staff, state media and and state buildings in order to upend democracy was an abuse of power.
1 edit
@vivify said"The Brazilian court found he illegally directed government staff to spread election lies"
No. From the NBC link I posted on the first page of this thread:Bolsonaro used government staffers, the state television channel and the presidential palace in Brasilia to tell foreign ambassadors that the country’s electronic voting system was rigged.
The Brazilian court found he illegally directed government staff to spread election lies, as well as used ...[text shortened]... rnment staff, state media and and state buildings in order to upend democracy was an abuse of power.
You are talking about an opinion. Unless it was proven without a doubt that he was deliberately spreading lies you have nothing but politically partisan mental illness.
Corrupt liars always call truth tellers liars. I can list a myriad of examples. It has been that way since politics began and even before that. He beat me up because I didn't cook dinner when he got home. She is a liar! Sexual abuse too. She wanted it and she is a liar.
"This wasn't just Bolsonaro expressing an opinion. Evidence showed he actively plotted to overturn the election. "
That is what all people who had elections stolen from them do. Are you really so dumb that you think people who protest election rigging do not want the election overturned? Show me a single example of a candidate alleging election fraud allegations that did not want the election overturned. That is the whole point you clueless dork.
Are you saying candidates who had elections stolen from them should not try their very best to inform people that their elections are rigged? There is plenty of evidence that electronic voting machines can be manipulated to change votes. You just condone calling that truth a lie. The truth is that the Brazilian court lied. Or are you going to claim Europe lied?
https://www.newsweek.com/europe-rejects-digital-voting-machines-80085
Bolonaro was banned from voting because of a lie. You condone it because of your uninformed opinion that the truth is a lie. Take it up with Europe.
@sh76 saidWithin our lifetimes, Brazil was a murderous and brutal military dictatorship where freedom of speech did not exist.
The whole point of freedom of political speech is that you pretty much get to make whatever claims you want and if you think the other guy is full of BS, then you explain to the public why.
If Bolsonaro is a liar, then the remedy is to explain to the public why and then beat him.
To use the justice system to stop a political opponent because of claims he makes (regardless of what those claims are) is prima facie antithetical to the concept of freedom of political speech.
Is that fact relevant? Where a person makes clear he will never accept any negative result in an election and will attempt to overthrow the duly elected President by virtually any means necessary, should he be allowed to run for office in a country with that recent history?
@no1marauder
Just curious, how long ago was that?
When our country first became independent only landowners could vote. Not many Americans today would consider that a democracy. At least I don't think they would.