It is indeed a recognized exception in Brazil. Also, our constitutions grants absolute freedom to communicate facts, while free expression is limited that way.
What is messed up here is how those things happened. It's not even clear if it's about hate speech, because the the censoring orders are themselves secret.
But then, the way Twitter handled things was messed up too.
Expression of thought is free. As brazilians we don't have the right to censor others, we have the right to answer and to be compensated for damages. The original insult is not censored.
I cited all the relevant parts of the constitution in a previous post:
I could not find the exception you spoke of in the constitution.
I agree with you about the irregular and illegal nature of the orders. The judge did not even give the defense lawyers the details. This is not how a civilized nation does things.
What appears to be some historic details concerning the transition from last century's military dictatorship to the democracy.
I still cannot find it.
Anyway...
I'm not exactly a fan of the "it's the court's interpretation" argument. It's an appeal to authority. The authority of these judges is questionable. They aren't real judges whose knowledge of law was tested by competition via concurso público. They're there due to their political connections. When it comes to correct application of the law, I'd sooner trust the judges in the lower courts than the current president's former lawyer.
I'm also not a fan of the word "interpretation". It opens the door to the selective and creative applications of the law. These judges usurped power when they started legislating instead of applying the law as written. I've had actual lawyers complain to my face about cases where these judges just made up their own interpretation instead of doing what the written text says.
I really want to see the article you speak of so that I can at least try to understand the logic they're using.
AFAIK, it's usually based on the item 8: repudiation of terrorism and racism. But this one decision may be about something else, nobody knows.
Those are not details about the transition from the dictatorship. They are expected to be followed by all of the remaining of the text. And yeah, that translation is correct, the actual text doesn't say that at all.
IMO, the entire thing is very bullshitty. There is an entire idea of "legal principles", taken out of context from random places on the Constitution, and the entire Judiciary upholds them, except when they decide not to. That started as soon as the constitution-writing assembly was dismissed.
(Just to add, even our first "democratically elected" president after the new constitution was picked by a decision like that.)
I see it now. Thank you. I don't agree with their interpretation but I see what you're getting at.
> the entire Judiciary upholds them, except when they decide not to
I started smelling bullshit too when I noticed this. These judges are not impartial at all.
> That started as soon as the constitution-writing assembly was dismissed.
How sad...
The popular saying here is "doctors think they're gods, judges know it". So things have always worked that way. Realizing this now as an adult is extremely demoralizing and disillusioning.
What is messed up here is how those things happened. It's not even clear if it's about hate speech, because the the censoring orders are themselves secret.
But then, the way Twitter handled things was messed up too.