Comment by EuAndreh
1 year ago
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)
> 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.
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.
>high-censorship, high-freedom societies like Germany
When the police storms your home (the wrong one at first, too) because you called a minister a dick on Twitter, that's not "high-freedom".
2 replies →
"High-freedom": https://www.yahoo.com/news/germany-offer-police-extra-search...
1 reply →
Germany isn’t “high-freedom”. Their people might be happy(though Germany seems to get more and more politically polarised every day), I wouldn’t know.
What's happiness got to do with it?
This is incorrect. Singapore is not a high censorship/low freedom society. You should visit countries before you trash them.
14 replies →
> 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.
> The question that needs to be answer is how far democracy is willing to go outside of democratic bounds to preserve itself.
To answer this question you first have to define what democracy is.
A decent definition is probably something like, a system of government in which policy is decided by having a public debate in which anyone can participate and then, after everyone has had a chance to say their piece, policy is chosen through voting.
From this you immediately run into potential problems. For example, suppose the majority is quite fond of the current leadership and wants to put them in power forever and stop holding elections. Is that democratic? It's the policy people are voting for. And yet, it would be the end of democracy, so the answer has to be no.
From this we discern that in order to have a democracy, there have to be certain things the government is never allowed to do, even if they're what the majority wants. You can't cancel elections, censor the opposition, throw people in jail without due process, etc. These types of things are inherently undemocratic, regardless of what the majority wants, because if the government does them you no longer have a democracy.
It should go without saying that the government can never do these things to "save democracy" because they are the very things that destroy it.
19 replies →
You want a democratic government to have "undemocratic" guardrails, because otherwise you are ok with mob rule. Democracy without rules is pure and simple majority rule. You do not want this. Unless of course you are ok with slavery, going back hangings, etc. If that's the case, I rest my case.
You want democracy to be prevented from acting out on its passions by a balance of powers.
IN the brazil case, the state powers, and the brazilian voters are not preventing 1 judge from acting out his passion "to protect democracy". Ergo, this is the problem. The mob is granting him this power, when in fact it should be voters, via congress or even the office of the president which brings this loose cannon of a judge back within the powers given by the constitution of brazil.
In this case, brazil is behaving like a raw democracy. It is true majority rule. Laws apply as the majority sees fit.
Hope you don't end in the minority.
5 replies →
> The question that needs to be answer is how far democracy is willing to go outside of democratic bounds to preserve itself.
I would say it should not do that essentially ever? If so, what kinds of undemocractic behavior would be allowed and what isn't? You probably have a certain kind of behavior in mind that you want to allow when you pose this question. If so, why not legislate that behavior using the democratic process?
It seems to me that the argument that protecting democracy by undemocratic means is okay, is essentially the same argument that a benevolent dictator is superior to democracy. Both arguments give special power to a certain group or individual that others do not have, which can be used to go outside the system if things don't work out. First order this argument is plausible. But second order effects (there is no such thing as categorically benevolent, and characters change, especially when in power) will always ruin it.
Democracy is messy. And when the world changes, there are challenges that democracy has to overcome. We're in the middle of a few of those changes right now. But the mess in by design. I believe that if we give up on a very high democratic standard things will turn out for the worse. My one addition here would be that in my view democracy is necessary but not suffient to get to a prosperous society. It needs to go hand in hand with a common value system where there's fellowship between citizens and genuine respect for individual right and the law. If not, there's a risk that the majority will only cater to itself.
31 replies →
> It's not like we had a left leaning judge favouring a left leaning party
Why does this matter?
> The question that needs to be answer is how far democracy is willing to go outside of democratic bounds to preserve itself.
Democracy is not an being. When you act democratically, that's democracy. When you act undemocratically, that's against democracy. Acting democratically is when the justification for your rule comes from the desires of the people ruled. When you believe it's fine to silence (or officially harass, imprison or kill) people whose desires don't conform with yours, you are actively working against democracy.
The biggest scam of the centrist blob is convincing some (comfortable, middle-class) people that they're insiders who own democracy, so all of their anti-democratic behavior becomes democratic by definition.
I don’t know if a well-designed democratic government needs to act undemocratically ever.
For example, in the US, the Supreme Court is able to expand its powers, but it can always be overridden by the legislative branch by design. The executive branch doesn’t even have to follow the Supreme Court’s rulings. And the legislative and executive can be replaced by citizens.
By design, the US Constitution basically has an infinite loop of checks and balances - there is always another institution that can override one institution without breaking any rules.
That said, the buck does stop, but it stops at the people. The problem is that people do need to be well-informed and vigilant to for the this scheme to work out, but to be honest, that is not a problem specifically with democracy — it’s just a general societal problem.
There have been recent Supreme Court rulings that many would say are disagreeable, but we’re not doing anything about it because a lot of citizens either support it or just don’t care. But if citizens did, we could easily undo those decisions using the rules set out by the Constitution. So the problem really lies more with the people than the system.
Now I’m not familiar with the Brazilian political system — who checks the Supreme Court there? I just know the US Constitution had a LOT of people working on it and they covered a lot of bases.
3 replies →
If it's outside democratic bounds, what is being preserved is not a democracy anymore. Why preserve it then? So it serves autocrats better? "We must become fascists so other fascists don't take over" is not a very convincing principle.
It makes no sense to destroy democracy in the name of defending it. To accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same is doublethink, a symptom of political alienation. Beware that you might be the fascist. Given time Jesus will return our the Sun will die taking us along with it. Eventuality isn't an argument.
In this case it sounds like Moraes threatened to arrest Brazilian X employees if the company didn’t comply with its requests.
That is wildly outside democratic norms IMO. Not just the arrest of individual employers, but the threat of which coming directly from a sitting Supreme Court Justice.
I think the point when people start saying "you have to do the reverse of X to preserve X" is the right time for them to look in the mirror and check not wearing clown getup
1 reply →
> The question that needs to be answer is how far democracy is willing to go outside of democratic bounds to preserve itself.
Leaving aside all inaccuracies that are unavoidable in political situations: Philosophy spent quite some time thinking about this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dirty-hands/
> 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.
... Uhuh.
These are supreme court judges who openly and publicly showboat about being the ones personally responsible for defeating Bolsonaro. They literally said things like "mission given, mission accomplished" after the election was over. I saw news where one of them said he was proud to be partidarian. They've also said that Lula being elected was due to decisions of the supreme court.
And you would have us believe they did not favor Lula in any way whatsoever.
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.
Investigating with the intent to suppress information you find objectionable is literally the definition of censorship. The reuters article makes it clear they intended to follow through legality be damned.
2 replies →
> 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.
I don't understand this post. Censoring is when a government official issues orders to publishers requiring them not so publish things. Whatever else you're talking about here you're simply using as a rationalization for censorship.
You have to know that you're being dishonest when the subject is a judge ordering publishers to unpublish and silence people, and you immediately equivocate between that and "investigating," then accuse "the right" of trying to confuse "their crimes" and "free speech." You're literally doing that right now. You are somehow explaining away literal and explicit censorship orders (that no one is claiming don't exist) as "investigation" of "their crimes."
4 replies →
This is why I like the United States. The first rule is freedom of speech. I hate Trump and I hate the right, I think Trump should be jailed for at least a decade for his attempts to destroy American democracy (fake elector scheme, inaction on Jan 6, pressuring of legislators during Jan 6), but I'd be out there protesting with everyone else if Trump could be jailed simply for spreading falsehoods in general.
I think freedom of speech is kind of a bullshit concept at a philosophical level - I've become very blackpilled in that department - but at a legalistic level it's beyond the pale to me that someone could be imprisoned just for words barring very special circumstances.
The government should not be throwing people in prison for allegedly "spreading lies for personal or political gain" unless it already clearly falls under an existing crime (like fraud - getting someone to give you money under explicit false pretenses) or tort (like defamation - knowingly telling damaging falsehoods about someone else to harm them). Incitement to likely, imminent lawless action is also already covered.
8 replies →
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?
In the paradox of intolerance, Popper was writing about violence, not anti-establishment speech.
Known for his critical rationalism and vehement opposition to authoritarianism, Popper would probably be spinning in his grave if he knew that his essay is cited as a token every time someone is persecuted for posting the wrong kind of tweet.
2 replies →
It must be tricky since I don't think you understood Popper at all.
Popper was completely in favor of free speech, and a completely open society, with no censorship except in the cases of actual violence:
"he is known for his vigorous defence of liberal democracy and the principles of social criticism that he believed made a flourishing open society possible" [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_popper#
1 reply →
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.
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.
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.
You can't claim to be defending people's rights while also jailing people without trial.
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.
In this scenario, are you actually charged with a crime? If not, that’s the literal definition of being jailed without trial.
Many (most?) democratic countries impose strict limits on how long you can be held without being charged. In the US, for example, you can only be held for 72 hours — at which point the police must either charge you or release you.
4 replies →
[flagged]
[dead]
4 replies →
[flagged]
> where it's possible to hold someone in jail before trial
Honestly, what did you expect? "Pretty please turn up for the trial and not kill anyone else while we're waiting?" Every country allows this if the crime was severe enough or the person is likely to be dangerous to others in the meantime. Usually there's a threshold to do that, but it's going to happen.
2 replies →
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.
"All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison."
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.
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.
Yep, that's how you get your next Enabling Act
No one is saying the court shouldnt defend democracy. We're saying that censorship is not the way to do that.
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.
Im not speaking to the legality, but the morality of censorship. The times believes censorship is wrong, so they titled an article about censorship in a way that calls out the censors.
26 replies →
Seems to have worked pretty well in Europe. Many countries here ban praise of past mistakes.
I personally don't allow anyone in my immediate family to say anything good about the Norman Conquest.
1 reply →
Was that meant to be a laugh line?
1 reply →
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.
Is this more in line with Brazil's legal tradition, or are you arguing this from within a different jurisdiction?
Brazil had a USA sponsored dictatorship, and because of this has a anti dictatorship constitution. The current Supreme Court is ignoring a lot that constitution, and they even admit it and claim there are valid reasons to act that way.
For example: it is illegal to enact lockdowns without following a specific procedure. During pandemic the Supreme Court said health is more important than laws and gave an order/command to the executive branch to ignore the law and do lockdowns. The president at time complained and was immediately accused of being "genocidal" and "antidemocratic" for his criticism of this decision.
That's what the Law demands.
I don't personally agree with all of it.
2 replies →
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.
> 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.
“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.
> 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".
> 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.
[flagged]
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.
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?
> 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?
Aren't we all? What is reality after all?
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]