> I don't think the supreme court acted in an authoritarian way, they just don't have the same legal tradition as the US does.
What do you mean by that?
The constitution on article 5 and 220 is clear on freedom of expression being a guaranteed right. e.g "manifestations of thought, creation, expression, and information may not be subject to any restrictions"
> responding specifically to the notion that Brazil was a thriving democracy before Lula took office, which is clearly absurd
Brazil has a long history of authoritarian and populist governments yet it's a democracy since 1988 despite the erosion. And certainly more thriving than Cuba or Venezuela. This notion isn't absurd at all. If you think that a party that is part of an ideological block of authoritarians like Castro, Chavez, Maduro, Xi, Putin et cetera and that has stayed in power for 16 of the last 22 years has done nothing to consolidate and perpetuate power you are beyond naivety.
What do you mean by that?
The constitution on article 5 and 220 is clear on freedom of expression being a guaranteed right. e.g "manifestations of thought, creation, expression, and information may not be subject to any restrictions"
> responding specifically to the notion that Brazil was a thriving democracy before Lula took office, which is clearly absurd
Brazil has a long history of authoritarian and populist governments yet it's a democracy since 1988 despite the erosion. And certainly more thriving than Cuba or Venezuela. This notion isn't absurd at all. If you think that a party that is part of an ideological block of authoritarians like Castro, Chavez, Maduro, Xi, Putin et cetera and that has stayed in power for 16 of the last 22 years has done nothing to consolidate and perpetuate power you are beyond naivety.