The first is the acutal supposedly censored media vehicle complaining. That's expected.
In any case, the decision is at best in a grey area. A lot of people cry about freedom of press but the decision was around electoral laws and was simply trying to get better isonomy for both candidates.
The other decision was about avoiding the use of an incredibly loaded and polemic at best situation that happened 4 years ago to influence this year's elections. Mind you, there's nothing more than hearsay and conspiracy theories to try to link the event to Lula, PT or others related to the elected President.
This is an interesting topic, certainly one where there's a non-obvious balance between freedom of press and speech, and just and isonomic elections.
About the documentary: it was censored based on its title only. It was not even watched by the sensors. When questioned about it, the president of the electoral court basically said something like “Let’s not fool ourselves, we know what will be there”. In other words, preemptive censorship.
At the same time, a “documentary” that explicitly invited watchers to vote the opposing candidate was aired for free on YouTube on the week of the election, with zero concerns about isonomy or its influence over it.
This kind of double standards casts a shadow of partisanship and illegitimacy on the electoral and supreme courts (they’re ridiculously basically the same people anyway), especially in a close election like this one.
According to their own website which you linked above:
“Não podemos, em nossa programação (...), falar sobre os fatos envolvendo a condenação do candidato petista Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva”
Translated to English:
“We are not allowed, in our programmes, to speak about facts involving the condemnation of the _petista_ (Workers Party member) candidate Luís Inácio Lula da Silva”
Well, given that the condemnation was unlawful, I imagine it’s not very hard to understand why talking about it without also speaking clearly about the unlawfulness and facts around it would be misleading to the public.
To your other point:
> At the same time, a “documentary” that explicitly invited watchers to vote the opposing candidate
> This kind of double standards
I don’t know which documentary you’re talking about, but here’s some food for thought.
Generally, explicitly asking for votes for one candidate makes it pretty clear what the bias in the publication is.
On top of that, the other, supposedly censored work, was speculative at best - given that despite Bolsonaro’s 4 years in power and effectively commanding the Federal Police, the alleged attempt on his life was never fully solved. Publishing it during the electoral campaign was considered an attempt at misleading the public opinion against one of the candidates based on hearsay and opinions.
That’s not a double standard. It’s perhaps just one that happens to inconvenience one more than the other but it’s a fairly clear one.
This kind of partisan half-truth is what allows totalitarian governments to be successful. He was convicted in three instances, including by the supreme court. He was proven to be a criminal. People convicted along with him have given back money they admitted to have stolen. The "unlawfulness" part is simply the supreme court judges finding a ridiculous excuse to allow him to run against a candidate they don't like. After years they suddenly figure out "well akshually he should have been judged in a court from a different city". Yeah, like that should invalidate all the crimes that were exposed.
The TV network was forbidden by the State to use specific terms like "ex-convict" and "criminal". It is not under dispute that he is both of these things.
Please keep in mind that dictators always say they are acting "within the law". In fact they are, because they control the law. This is what's going on here.
> On top of that, the other, supposedly censored work, was speculative at best - given that despite Bolsonaro’s 4 years in power and effectively commanding the Federal Police, the alleged attempt on his life was never fully solved. Publishing it during the electoral campaign was considered an attempt at misleading the public opinion against one of the candidates based on hearsay and opinions.
The documentary wasn't even about the elections. Besides, how do you know that it was speculative? How do you know it would be an attempt to mislead the public? You didn't watch it. Nobody has, because it was preemptively censored.
Whatever your political side is, left or right, I beg you, please don't side with censors.
This kind of partisan half-truth is what allows totalitarian governments to be successful.
"Lula trial in Brazil violated due process, says UN rights panel" [0][1]
He was unlawfully investigated and judged by Sérgio Moro, who then followed to become Justice Minister [2] in what's at best a clear ethical conflict.
The whole process was ridden with vices and other legal and ethical issues. Secret US involvement [3][4], coordination between judge and prosecution [5][6] and many others.
> The "unlawfulness" part is simply the supreme court judges finding a ridiculous excuse to allow him to run against a candidate they don't like.
The leaks make it fairly clear that the whole process was politically motivated to eliminate Lula from the race against Bolsonaro [7].
> Please keep in mind that dictators always say they are acting "within the law". In fact they are, because they control the law. This is what's going on here.
It is not. The current President, chief of the executive and the Armed Forces, is the one who's being supposedly hit by these decisions.
> The TV network was forbidden by the State to use specific terms like "ex-convict" and "criminal". It is not under dispute that he is both of these things.
I agree it is not under dispute. You could say "ex-convict" is not wrong but it doesn't tell the whole story. He was unlawfully convicted.
You can absolutely not call him a "criminal". That he is not, or at least it has not been proved within a fair trial that he is. I believe I have provided enough high profile references to this effect.
> The documentary wasn't even about the elections. Besides, how do you know that it was speculative?
There hasn't been a conclusive investigation on the matter. I don't see how it could be anything but speculative, and given the timing they wanted to have it released it's hard to not think it was electoral in nature.
> Whatever your political side is, left or right, I beg you, please don't side with censors.
I do not. Now that elections are over, I fully expect it to be allowed to air and if there are credible accusations they should be investigated. That said, if it does have any substance, why hasn't it been sent to the prosecutorial authorities so that they could start investigative proceures?
The fact that it hasn't also hints at purely electoral motives.
[0] https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/04/1117192
[1] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/04/brazil-crimi...
[2] https://uk.news.yahoo.com/brazil-anti-graft-judge-accepts-bo...
[3] https://theintercept.com/2020/03/12/united-states-justice-de...
[4] https://progressive.international/wire/2021-02-12-lava-jato-...
[5] https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/brazil-lula-operation-ca...
[6] https://theintercept.com/series/mensagens-lava-jato/
[7] https://theintercept.com/2019/06/16/vaza-jato-corrupcao-serg...
You have got to be joking. The UN has neither jurisdiction nor the access to the necessary information to make such a statement. This panel's opinion is worth nothing, and obtained purely as result of Brazil having a right wing president at the time, i.e., thy must take the opposite side, whatever it is, because right-wing-bad.
> The leaks make it fairly clear that the whole process was politically motivated to eliminate Lula from the race against Bolsonaro [7].
No, they don't, and no amount of linking to The Intercept will change that. They are partisan hacks trying (not very hard) to pass as independent journalists. Zero credibility whatsoever. Their leaks are a big nothingburger used as an excuse by a corrupt supreme court in order to be able to have a popular candidate that represented the establishment's interests in the election.
> It is not. The current President, chief of the executive and the Armed Forces, is the one who's being supposedly hit by these decisions.
The censorship and dictatorial actions are coming from the judiciary, against whose documented abuses of power the executive (and pretty no one) can do anything about.
The Brazilian supreme court has been playing the role of victim, judge and executor in illegal inquiries through Bolsonaro's term, with almost zero reaction from the media and the left, because the abuses are against "the right" and so they think it's a good thing. Ironically the only voices from the left denouncing the supreme court's abuses come from the Trotskyist party PCO.
> You can absolutely not call him a "criminal". That he is not, or at least it has not been proved within a fair trial that he is.
Again, he has been judged in three independent instances of the judiciary and found guilty in all of them. The sentence given by the judge you call "politically motivated" was considered low and increased by a superior instance. His people in the corruption scheme have given back millions they stole. His finance minister. People he has put in the board of state-run companies. If there was no corruption, why have they returned this money?
High profile sources? Come on, at least pretend to be arguing in good faith. Apart from "The Intercept" your other link is to "Progressive International" (Seriously? One of the members of this group is CUT, a violent labor union with deep ties to the Worker Party), which is republishing an article from "Brasil Wire", an entity tied multiple other far-left groups, who publish blatant bizarre partisan fake news on their home page.
> it's hard to not think it was electoral in nature.
It's hard to think anything at all without having seen the documentary.
Again, please stop defending censorship. It will come to bit you sooner or later.