Hacker News Reader

Comment by htk | Hacker News Reader

Brazil has been on a slippery slope regarding free speech. I see parallels with the war on terror, where the 9/11 attacks gave carte-blanche to gain power of the population. Brazil started with the "war on fake news" and now they just ban/censor whatever they think is objectionable. I hope it's not as sticky as the increase in surveillance from the NSA and the authoritarian approach from the TSA.

View on HN

It's not just Brazil; the vast majority of governments are trying to put a tighter leash on what people can say online. Because the decentralisation of information transfer is allowing citizens to be more informed than ever before about things their rulers don't want them to know.

> the decentralisation of information transfer is allowing citizens to be more informed than ever before about things their rulers don't want them to know

Racial superiority ideas and/or discrimination is the issue in this case, and 90% of other cases involving censorship in Brazil. How is that something “the rulers don’t want you to know”?

> Brazil has been on a slippery slope regarding free speech.

Citation needed. Free speech is not an "unlimited right" in Brazil (I'd argue it's not an unlimited right in the U.S. either, but that's not necessary here)

Article 3 of the 1988 Constitution of Brazil states:

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.

---

You can also just read on Wikipedia about this to be better informed... it's literally on the "Freedom of speech in Brazil" article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Brazil#Ty...

> Free speech is not an "unlimited right" in Brazil

Free speech exists as an unlimited right everywhere. Sometimes, tyrants fail to recognize that existence, is all

Human rights are cultural, for example the right to food and housing is seen by some other cultures as a human right. Does that mean the US ruled by tyrants for not recognizing that?

Human rights are not as universal as you might think.

Human rights are human, that's why they're called "human rights." If they were cultural, they would be called "cultural rights." Some people claim that food and housing are "human rights"; those people are factually wrong because food and housing are limited resources that require time and effort to obtain. (In contrast, speaking one's mind is something anyone can just do; it's an intrinsic property of being human.)

The view that only negative rights are human rights is not a given and quite libertarian. For example education is often seen as a human right and is a positive right.

Human rights depend on what one values and that’s different for different groups. It’s crazy to think that the way a certain country/person/ideology think about rights is the only correct way.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

Once again, the universality of human rights is implied by their name, "human rights." If the government of Slevobia wants to provide healthcare to all Slevobian citizens, more power to them; but healthcare is then a "right of Slevobian citizens," not a "human right."

"Factually wrong" oh yeah, I'm being factual and logical and those others are being ideological and political.

Yes, this is in fact one of the few cases where a philosopical question has clear-cut, empirically verifiable right and wrong answers.

(Merry Christmas btw)

Of course, like I said, libertarianism is empirically verifiably right. Got it.

I don't consider myself a libertarian. "Food and shelter are limited resources" is empirically verifiable.

That is a fact. Where your ideology enters the argument is when you say that implies they're not human rights.

Who’s “they” and what exactly are they “banning”? I haven’t seen much outside the political disinformation sphere and some abuses of power around politicians protecting their own image. What aren’t you allowed to say today in brazil?

> political disinformation

Translation: information (true, false, or just opinion) that the power structure sees as a threat to itself

Information that the power structure of a country that’s been controlled by the military twice sees as a threat to democracy, perhaps?

Unlimited free speech absolutists just want to see the world burn

Ah yes, military juntas, famous for their love of free expression /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com