> For example, racism is a punishable offense in Brazil. You literally cannot say "I hate <insert race>".
What if you dress it up a little? E.g. "<insert race> is primarily and disproportionately responsible for <insert societal ill>"?
What if you dress it up a little? E.g. "<insert race> is primarily and disproportionately responsible for <insert societal ill>"?
Context is key. IANAL nor a judge, but I think saying "<insert race> is primarily and disproportionately responsible for <insert societal ill>" is a valid statement (i.e. not quote-unquote racist) IF you are saying it in the context of an intellectual discussion, open to providing data to support it, explaining why your comment has a purpose other than just discrimination, etc. etc.
Conversely, are unsubstantiated and even false statements (that don't qualify as libel Edit: nor fraud, false advertisement, copyright infringement, and other strictly commercial limits on speech) allowed, so long as they advance the "right" purpose?
The Wikipedia article on freedom of speech in Brazil is a good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Brazil
It's not a particularly well-written article, but it does lay out the key article from the constitution (article 5) and the various articles in the penal code and the anti-racism law (which is a specific law!) regarding freedom of speech.
Additionally, Article 3, paragraph 4 of the Constitution is key. It's placement at the very top of the constitution, if not legally meaningful, feels politically meaningful to me:
Art. 3 The fundamental objectives of the Federative Republic of Brazil are:
I. to build a free, just and unified society;
II. to guarantee national development;
III. to eradicate poverty and substandard living conditions and to reduce social and regional inequalities;
IV. to promote the well-being of all, without prejudice as to origin, race, sex, color, age and any other forms of discrimination.
So the proof of the pudding to me as a layman is whether whatever form of speech you used qualifies as "prejudice as to origin, race, sex, color, age and any other forms of discrimination"
So "He was justified in sabotaging logging machines, because sacrificing our rainforests for profit is wrong, and the government hasn't done enough to reduce logging" carries an up to half a year prison term.
Besides, I'd wager even if the whole state hated you, you would clearly be protected in that specific scenario by article 5 of the constitution, which trumps the penal code or other ordinary laws:
IX - are free the expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific and communication, regardless of censorship or license;
But again, IANAL (although married to one)
Some laws are written in such a way that, eventually, when put to the test and being presented to the Supreme Court, which judges matters of constitutionality, they may indeed be declared void for being unconstitutional. That has never happened for article 287 of the penal code, although it may one day. You'd need an actual case to make that claim, though.
There are no "superiors", except for the constitution.
The law as written doesn't take into account whether the Supreme Court judges are corrupt or politically appointed/influenced. The law spells out what "ought to be", not what "is".
Ok, so unless article 287 has literally never been used, my fear is valid.
> There are no "superiors", except for the constitution.
I was referring to the defense of "oh but they'd never use this overreaching law badly". If the law is too vague or broad, those interpreting it become your superiors, since they get such wide latitude.