> It IS disclosed for the involved and accused parties.
Nope, defense attorneys have not had access to case files in many instances.
> Hate speech, spread disinformation about elections, irregular political propaganda, threatening other people, trying to abolish the rule of law...
You can list the whole criminal code if you want, but you cannot point to a single concrete case.
> Where is the source or proof of this information? Far right groups on social media?
Careful, you say “far right” so much that someone might mistake you for a journalist.
Here are some sources. You tell me of they are “far right groups”[1,2,3].
> Whataboutism which do not even make sense. The linked protest had not the objective of abolishing the rule of law.
Both were instances of vandalism. One had no consequences for the perpetrators. The other is painted as an “attempt to abolish the rule of law” for political reasons and has resulted in unlawful mass incarceration.
How many “abolition the rule of law” events have been attempted without the use of guns in the history of the world?
Vandalism was committed by people revolted with the idea that a country’s biggest criminal organization would be back in power. Painting this as a coup attempt is farcical.
> January 8th did not happened randomly, happening from thin air. There was an ongoing coup attempt happening since much earlier.
You cannot replace basic logic with a conspiracy theory either. You justify a 2019 inquiry (whose opening text mentions the word “coup” exactly zero times) because of 2023 events. This makes no sense and the fact that you insist on this point only shows that you are not interest in honest conversation about this subject.
You will justify any attack against those you don’t like, and you will not be limited by things such as logic while doing so. I hope you never become a victim of the kind of tyranny you support.
> You took this from far right groups in social media? Children or dogs cannot be arrested.
> 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.
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.
> Not censorship. Brazilian law allows you to remove content in case of criminal investigation, threatenings, unbased defamation....
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.
Once again you don't address the points in my previous points and reply with something completely different.
> All your interpretation and from some of jurists that you cite is that the attacks that Brazilian institutions suffered, like the attacks caused by digital militias during the Bolsonaro government were not serious coordinated attacks against the rule of law and against the tribunal.
Oh yes, the grave attacks of people talking on twitter. The Brazilian institutions suffered so much.
> Saying that "Brazil is dictatorship" just because you have a divergent interpretation is ridiculous.
Brazil is a dictatorship because its own Supreme Court disrespects the constitution, censors elected congressmen and journalists without due process (see Twitter Files Brazil), arrests people with without due process, withdraws access to case files to defense attorneys... the list goes on.
> You replicate the arguments in far right groups
Yes, the former Republic Attorney General, a well known far right extremist.
> This is just a term used in media
The exact term is used in the opening of the wildcard illegal inquiry.
> If I threaten to kill all judges in Brazil, and create a plan to do so, according with you, I cannot be judged because any judge would also be victim in my crime?
You think this is some sort of slam dunk argument but it is so juvenile that it shouldn't even deserve a thoughtful reply. You create a fantasy scenario where there's no specific victim ("threaten all judges in Brazil") that is obviously so absurd that such a threat shouldn't even be considered seriously. In the case of an actual crime, where a number of judges are victims, one would expect that investigations are carried out by the Federal Prosecution Service, not by the judges themselves, and that the case would be judged different judges, not the victims themselves.
> The fact is that there are cases where the STF has power to act
This is the core of the problem. The Supreme Court has the power to do whatever it wants, without limits. It is also a political court that is, in their own words, adversarial against right wing thought, and to defeat the right wing they will not be limited by the rule of law.
> Moreover, nobody is being at the same time judge and prosecutor
It's not false and it was only made possible by a corruption of the written words in the Supreme Court regiment AND by ignoring the 1988 constitution.
> The second is also false: if you perform an attack against the supreme court, in an coup attempt, or if you menace ministers, or the judges of supreme court, it is the supreme court that will handle the case.
First of all, there is no "fake news" crime in the Brazilian criminal code. Second, the Supreme Court cannot handle cases of people without special jurisdiction privileges, it must be handle by first instance courts. Third, you cannot have the same person performing the roles of victim, prosecutor and judge. This is a basically rule of Law, it's simply dishonest to pretend it's OK.
> It is also false that inquiry 4874 do not specify a crime to investigate.
Considering the existence of fraudulent news (fake news), slanderous denunciations, threats and infractions coated with animus calumniandi, diffamanadi and injuriandi, which affect the honor and security of the Federal Supreme Court, its members and families, resolves, in accordance with article 43 and subsequent of the Internal Regiment, open an iquiry to investigate the facts and corresponding infractions, in all their dimensions. [1]
Not a single concrete, specific instance of a crime is mentioned. There are only vagaries. It's a wildcard inquiry designed for political persecution.
> Your legal comprehension of the case is low and you are just repeating the far right narrative, created so that they will not face consequences for their coup attempt.
I've filled my comments with references, including the original document which determines the inquiry to be opened. Meanwhile all your comments accuse me of lying without any proof.
The thing is, I believe you know the inquiry is illegal, but you support it anyway because it is happening against people you don't like. That's why you have to bring up the ghost of a "far right narrative", but you are unable to reply with a single concrete fact.
In fact you don't even realize that you fail basic logic by referring to an event that happened on January 8th 2023 to justify the unconstitutional opening of an inquiry that happened 2019.
To make sure HN readers are not misled by your biased rebuttals, I will quote the words of the Brazilian Attorney General at the time, on her request for the archival of the inquiry, which was denied by the judge, prosecutor and victim of the case [2].
- The decision of Justice Dias Toffoli, who ordered the opening of this investigation ex officio, appointed its rapporteur, Justice Alexandre de Moraes, without observing the principle of free distribution; and gave it investigative powers, breached the guarantee of judicial impartiality in criminal actions, in addition to obstructing the criminal action holder’s access to the investigation.
- In addition to not observing the constitutional rules for the delimitation of powers or functions of the Public Prosecutor's Office in the criminal process, this decision transformed the investigation into an act with the concentration of criminal functions in the judge, which puts at risk the accusatory criminal system itself and the guarantee of the investigated regarding the exemption from the judging body.
- The jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court is not defined based on the fact that this court is a possible victim of a criminal act. The delimitation of the investigation cannot be generic, abstract, nor can it be exploratory of indeterminate acts, without definition of time and space, nor of individuals. After more than 30 days of this initiation, the files were not even sent to the Public Prosecutor's Office, as determined by the criminal procedural law itself
Interpreting is one thing, inventing new meanings completely removed from the written words is completely different. Otherwise they would be free to legislate, but they are not the legislative power.
I think putting it that way could lead someone to believe a country’s population agrees with the actions of the managerial elite. But yes, I agree with the essence of the idea, though I think it’s clearer to say they own or run the country.
> The decision by supreme court (10x1), was that virtual attacks also count as an attack to the court.
What the heck is a “virtual attack”?
Your statement is basically the same as “the Supreme Court gave itself power to go after whoever they want”. Do you think this is healthy in a democracy?
> the supreme's regiment was old, and at the time there was no internet.
Yes, it is so old that the newer 1988 constitution should be observed instead, and it says investigations must be started by the Federal Prosecution Service.
Instead they decided to reinterpret the very clear wording of the regiment (“within the premises of the Supreme Court”) to mean something completely different (“whatever happens on the internet”). Again, do you think this is healthy in a democracy?
> The regiment is made by Supreme Court itself, so, isn't like they are modifying a congress law.
In other words, “they make their own rules”? No, that’s not how it’s supposed to work. The Supreme Court does not have the right to override the constitution.