Brazilians are divided on what can be said in Brazil

A recent survey signaled that the Brazilian population is in disagreement about the guarantees of freedom of expression in Brazil. Respondents were divided when answering whether or not Brazilian legislation prohibits various situations, such as criticizing the Federal Supreme Court (STF), protesting asking for military intervention or questioning electronic voting machines.

The study was carried out by the Sivis Institute, in partnership with the Jumppi Institute, in July of this year. 1,128 people participated, representing the universe of Brazilians over 18 years of age, considering gender, age, education and region of the country.

For 37.1% of Brazilians, it is permissible to publicly defend that the STF is harming democracy, unlike the 35.5% who consider that it is not permissible. Regarding protests calling for military intervention, 42.6% believe it is not consensual, while 38.1% believe it is. Regarding the current electoral system, 36.3% of respondents believe that they are prevented from questioning it, while 49% see no problem in doing so.

For the political scientist and professor at Insper, Fernando Schüler, the institutions ended up fulfilling a role of disinformation about the guarantees associated with freedom of expression. “In this question about what can or cannot, a part of the people answer considering what is in the Constitution and another part answers referring to what is in fact allowed. It is a fact that today there is a divorce between what is guaranteed in the Constitution and what is respected”, he analyzes.

Another relevant result is related to the fear of manifesting publicly. Of the total respondents, 44.6% have ever felt fear of persecution or of being harmed by authorities for publicly criticizing politicians, public agents or government public policies. Schüler observes: “If the survey shows that more than a third of the population considers that one should not criticize authorities and the State in Brazil, this survey is very important because it demonstrates that there really is a malaise in relation to freedom of expression.”

The study also pointed out that 26.3% of Brazilians do not believe that Brazil is a country where people are free to express their opinions. Still according to the survey, 41.2% of those interviewed think that, in a difficult situation, the government cannot bypass laws, Congress and institutions in order to solve problems.

For the political scientist, the current problem is that any criticism is unduly associated with a threat to democracy or the rule of law. “Today there is a very open interpretation of what constitutes a risk to democracy. What is a risk to democracy has to be something very clear and restrictive, otherwise it is an open space for the abuse of power, ”he observes.

“The open interpretation of what violations of the law are ends up generating judgments according to the convenience of those in power”, evaluates Schüler.

After all, what is a crime?

A People’s Gazette consulted an expert to explain what the Brazilian legislation says about some situations mentioned in the survey by the Sivis Institute. For Igor Costa, criminal lawyer and Master in Constitutional Law, many points must be clarified to the population.

Is it allowed to camp in front of Armed Forces barracks criticizing the government?

YES: 36.3%
NO: 52.6%
WHAT THE EXPERT SAYS: “Just camping in front of Armed Forces barracks does not violate the law. The Penal Code provides for the crime of violent abolition of the Democratic State of Law when there is an attempt to abolish the Democratic State of Law with the use of violence or serious threat. In September 2021, a new criminal offense was created for those who publicly incite animosity between the Armed Forces, with a prison sentence of two to six months or a fine.”

Is it permissible to call a minister a “scoundrel” or a “tramp”?

YES: 21.6%
NO: 66.5%
WHAT THE EXPERT SAYS: “In this case, there is in fact the crime of injury with a prison sentence of three to six months. However, criminal actions for injury must be filed by the person who was injured. The State cannot, through the Public Ministry, promote a criminal action for the crime of injuria. An important detail is that if the injury is committed against a public official due to his duties, then the Public Prosecutor’s Office can move.”

Is it permissible to question the current electoral system, based on electronic voting?

YES: 49%
NO: 36.3%
WHAT THE EXPERT SAYS: “There is no crime and it is evidently marked by freedom of expression, constitutionally provided for, the right to criticize or have doubts about the fairness of the electoral process. What the Penal Code ensures is that it is illegal to prevent or disturb the election or its result through undue violation of the security mechanisms of the voting system.”

Is it permissible to criticize the participation of transsexuals in women’s sports?

YES: 39.3%
NO: 45.4%
WHAT THE EXPERT SAYS: “Homophobia was interpreted within the crime of racism, something that is criticized by many penalists. Still, criticizing – even publicly – the participation of transsexuals in women’s sports does not break the law. To be considered a transgression, a concrete act of discrimination is required, such as a person being passed over in a selection process due to sexual orientation.”

In conclusion, Costa explains about the excesses committed by authorities. “Any of these crimes, if they are interpreted very rudely, such as, for example, arresting someone for having uttered a mere opinion discrediting the electoral system, that is indeed a crime of abuse of authority”, he concludes.

Click here to access the complete survey.