@metal-brain said1964-1985.
@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.
No one would consider what Brazil had during that time anywhere near as democratic as post-independence USA regardless of your endless attempts at pointless "whataboutisms".
@no1marauder
Dude, all I did was ask a question out of curiosity.
You are rather paranoid. Chill out.
@sh76 saidI suppose putting legal constraints on antl democratic forces that would use any means to overturn a democratic election including the blocking of highways and the storming of parliamentary buildings is not allowed in the post truth world
From the NY Times:
[quote]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 t ...[text shortened]... g a speech on TV is not something anyone would ever call out if the content were less controversial.
If you believe an election was rigged you have to prove it before you attempt to overturn the stated will of the people, bolsanaro is a military coup in waiting and Brazil has a right to protect itself from that, just because the military spurned bolsanaro this time their is no way of knowing if they will the next time.
If you do not respect the democratic process then why should you be allowed to participate.
@metal-brain saidWell no because it OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT a free and fair democratic election, that is exactly the scenario that Brazil and the US are trying to avoid by holding attempted coup conspirators to account.
@kevcvs57
Papa doc Duvalier had consolidated his power in 1962 by being elected President by a whopping 1,320,748 “yes” votes — in an election that had exactly 0 votes for anybody else.
Should people have accepted the result of that election?
I understand that as a Russian you neither like or understand democracy but some of us like to hold the threat of unemployment above the heads of our lords and masters.
@metal-brain saidThe court found that Bolsonaro didn't simply dispute the results, he spread false information.
@kevcvs57
Papa doc Duvalier had consolidated his power in 1962 by being elected President by a whopping 1,320,748 “yes” votes — in an election that had exactly 0 votes for anybody else.
Should people have accepted the result of that election?
@metal-brain saidHahaha socialist Russia 😂😂 you utter retard
@kevcvs57
You constantly lying by calling socialist Russia to be the opposite fascist Russia is what is really childish. The USSR even had socialist in the name. Left is not right you halfwit.
STOP LYING LIKE A CHILD!
Oligarchs and socialism don’t mix mate but they are quite at home propping up a fascist authoritarian regime as long as they get to dip their beaks.
Socialist Russia, oh my days
1 edit
@no1marauder saidOkay, so you're saying that what they're doing to Bolsonaro may violate free speech principles, but the nature of the circumstances warrant that in this case?
Within our lifetimes, Brazil was a murderous and brutal military dictatorship where freedom of speech did not exist.
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?
If so, I can't say that's unreasonable, but from an idealized standpoint, using the justice system to block a political candidate for actions what basically amount to political speech is a bad business.
1 edit
@vivify saidCasting doubt on the electoral system is still speech. Spreading misinformation is still speech. Seeking to overturn an election by telling the people that it was unfair is still speech.
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.
Now, if he planned to march on Brasília and conquer it by force, that would be another matter.
The only way to justify this is by arguing, as No1 did, that the circumstances warrant an exception to freedom of political speech in this case. Even freedom of speech is not absolute; I'll concede that.
But in a vacuum, this is a bad business.
For example, if we'd do the same to Trump for spreading misinformation about the 2020 election, that would be unconstitutional, in my view. If he gets convicted of a crime, that's another matter.
@sh76 saidCall it a Socratic question. I've always tended to free speech absolutism, but Brazil, like many countries, has a long history of military intervention in politics to defeat the will of the People.
Okay, so you're saying that what they're doing to Bolsonaro may violate free speech principles, but the nature of the circumstances warrant that in this case?
If so, I can't say that's unreasonable, but from an idealized standpoint, using the justice system to block a political candidate for actions what basically amount to political speech is a bad business.
So should it have the same rules as long term stable democracies?
4 edits
@sh76 saidThat's fine. Just keep in mind he was not punished for speech but for abuse of power, spreading false information and plotting to overturn an election.
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Also keep in mind he wasn't criminally charged; no incarceration or fines just temporarily barred from running for office.
1 edit
@sh76 saidWell we can agree it rests somewhere between shouting "fire" In a crowded theater and Gitlow's anti-WWI pamphlet.
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
But where is the appropriate line and whether the line should vary based on exigent circumstances are not easy questions.
EDIT: Actually Gitlow's pamphlet calling for the overthrow of the government was post-WWI. My bad.
@no1marauder saidI don't know.
Call it a Socratic question. I've always tended to free speech absolutism, but Brazil, like many countries, has a long history of military intervention in politics to defeat the will of the People.
So should it have the same rules as long term stable democracies?
It's a similar question to whether anti-Holocaust denial laws in Germany (and nearby countries) are justified. These laws wouldn't pass muster in the US, but may be justified by historical circumstances.
I don't have the answer on where to draw the line.
I will say that denying Bolsonaro (or Trump) the right to run in democratic elections because he denies that they're being run fairly doesn't sit well with me. And the abuse of power reasoning seems like a pretext.