Comment by matheusmoreira | Hacker News Reader

Comment by matheusmoreira | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm not an "account". I'm a person. I have a name. I'm not a fake either. My work has been featured here on HN. I post what I think, not some prepared discourse.

I assume you can cite the exact laws which refute every single one of the points raised in the comments I cited?

We're not even gonna get into the censorship stuff this time around. We'll limit our focus to the very specific irregularities of the supreme court which are well outlined in the aforementioned comments. You don't even have to refute both comments, the first one is enough:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966382

Take the sentences starting with a dash and cite the laws which refute those claims, one by one. Cite the laws that say these judges can do everything that was outlined in that comment. Link me to the law that supposedly allows supreme court judges to investigate, prosecute, judge, sentence and punish others for crimes against themselves. Take your time. I will be checking my threads for replies.

If you refute those points, I will change my world view accordingly, and I will never cite those comments ever again. I will even thank you for making me smarter than I was yesterday.

If you can't, then at least have enough decency to stop commenting this "brazilian laws allow..." nonsense like clockwork. Simply because brazilian law clearly does not allow judges to do what these judges are doing. Also, at this point brazilian law is irrelevant anyway since whatever these judges decide is the real law. I mean, our representatives rejected the proposed "fake news" law, and the judges proceeded as if the law was in effect anyway.

I keep laughing at the "law" arguments people keep bringing up - even if the law allowed for this kind of thing (which is clearly against the Brazillian constitution), does that make it right?

Yes, the law is apparently abusable enough that it allows the supreme court to deem whatever it wants illegal and censor what they disagree with. Does that mean it makes sense?

These people are in for a rude awakening in a few years.

> does that make it right?

Arguing that angle is fruitless. My fellow brazilians seem to think the law is some kind of holy tome which holds the ultimate truth of the universe. Maybe it's because we never had racial segregation laws like in the USA. There was no Martin Luther King Jr. to introduce the concept of civil disobedience to them.

Hilariously, things are so screwed up that arguing this morals angle is not even necessary. The existing laws already do a fine job at not allowing what these judges are doing. The whole problem is they're the highest court in the country and they're just doing whatever they want with not a single person able to stop them. "Selectively applying and creatively interpreting" the very simple words written in the constitution.

And every single time people respond with impressive mental gynmnastics to justify the judge-king's actions. I've had people argue with me by citing laws lower than the constitution. By getting into asinine arguments over the definition of free speech and censorship. By arguing over "isonomy". By calling me a moron for presuming to do the judge-king's job as if the contradictions weren't there in plain sight for all to see.

> These people are in for a rude awakening in a few years.

I hope I'm here to see it.

No, really. At this point it's a desperate hope. My own parents, who lived through the military dictatorship, asked me to stop saying this stuff online. They are afraid I'll be arrested.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com