Unless the “race” in question is white. In that case, you can absolutely say that, as has been done by government officials of the current administration.

A district attorney has ruled [2] that there was no racism in that case because reverse racism doesn’t exist.

[1]https://g1.globo.com/google/amp/politica/noticia/2023/09/26/...

[2] https://www.metropoles.com/sao-paulo/torcida-branca-mpsp-neg...

Alternatively; The value of maintaining current discrimination is high enough to motivate laws protecting racists from exposing themselves publicly.

Or; The value in maintain hatred within society is higher than the value of progressive discourse.

My point is that there are a few ways to interpret speech controls, and i don't think its fair to just pick the positive spin.

All of human progress has happened through open discussion; i thought this was obvious. We gain immunity to bad ideas by hearing them within public areas where people can argue for and against them honestly. This leads to people gaining/learning good ideas because they more often defeat bad ideas. Leading to a more progressive society. Ban bad ideas in public and people become vulnerable to them in private.

>The value of saying what you want is not held higher than the value of not being discriminated against.

This is not a cogent argument; The vast majority of discrimination is not verbal, in fact the verbal bit isn't generally discrimination at all but a signal that discrimination may be happening.. suppress the signal and you can generally keep the discrimination.

Brazilian Law doesn't preclude you from having actual intellectual discussions about any topic. There are limits to hate speech, harassment, bullying, etc. There is no real benefit from having bigots spew hatred openly in society. In fact, giving them the opportunity to promote intolerance tends to breed more intolerance. This has been the case with nazis, QAnon, extreme right more generally in the US, Bolsominions in Brazil... We cannot be tolerant of intolerance. Curtailing speech is a "necessary harm" to prevent a bigger harm from occurring, which is the curtailment of life.

> This is not a cogent argument; The vast majority of discrimination is not verbal, in fact the verbal bit isn't generally discrimination at all but a signal that discrimination may be happening.. suppress the signal and you can generally keep the discrimination.

I appreciate the discussion but unfortunately that's not logical. Specifically, I said:

1. All forms of discrimination are harmful and should be minimized or eliminated.

2. Verbal discrimination is a form of discrimination.

3. Therefore, verbal discrimination should be minimized or eliminated.

You're saying

1. The majority of discrimination is non-verbal.

2. Verbal discrimination often signals non-verbal discrimination.

3. If a form of discrimination is less prevalent or is a signal of another form, it is less important to address.

4. Therefore, it's acceptable to allow verbal discrimination.

But that's a fallacy. Specifically "false dichotomy", in that it implies that addressing one issue (verbal discrimination) precludes or is less important than addressing another (non-verbal discrimination). In reality, both can and should be addressed concurrently.

All forms of discrimination, whether prevalent or indicative, contribute to the overall harm caused by discrimination.

Therefore, even if verbal discrimination is less prevalent or a signal of non-verbal discrimination, it should still be minimized or eliminated alongside other forms of discrimination.

You are specifically arguing that we must allow verbal discrimination because we will be able to combat non-verbal discrimination better. I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that this is the case.

Empirically, Brazil is much less racist than the U.S. for a variety of reasons. If freedom of speech was so important to prevent non-verbal discrimination, it would stand to reason that one such example of a "infinitely free speaking" and "tolerant" society would exist. I can't think of any.

Not to mention the fact that "non-verbal discrimination" is specifically harder to legislate against (or even harder to prove in a courtroom), which explains why it is not as clearly outlawed in the Brazilian constitution.

The best part about laws against wrongthink is that the things you’re not allowed to think or say are wrong by definition. Who defines what’s wrongthink? Well, asking that question sounds like wrongthink to me.

The judge. Feel free to argue your case in court. No law is black and white. Judges and juries get to decide on their application every single date.

Another judge decides when you see the judge that will try your case.

> Do I just sit quietly in jail until then?

No, you can have your attorney file an habeas corpus to either have your case tried speedily or have you be released from jail until the court date.

Just because you don't know how the law works doesn't mean others haven't thought about these challenges before and solved them. Ignorance doesn't make your arguments stronger.

That is unless the individual is considered a flight risk from Brazil.

Although normally even if you are considered a flight risk you often just have to turn in your passport and wait for your trial at home, IIRC

It's truly staggering how common it is here.

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.