Trying to understand freedom of expression with Bolsonaro
The right to freedom of expression is a recent achievement in Brazil. Although the 1967 Constitution already guaranteed free thought, it was only in the Constitution of 1988 that this right was no longer conditioned by government and morality.
Its foundation is to protect individual and collective freedom, which may not make sense to an inattentive reader, but think better. By prohibiting a journalist from publishing a story, for example, it’s not only the journalist who is censored, but the entire community, which is no longer benefited by the information or debates consequent upon that publication.
With few variations, freedom of expression is a consensus among democratic nations to the extent that it’s counteracting in authoritarian regimes. It’s that old anecdote that the history teacher told in class and nobody paid attention: “you can speak ill of democracy because it’s in a democracy.” In other words, it’s possible to measure the quality of a democracy by the freedom it promotes.
On the other hand, every right and every freedom needs rules that clarify its limits, in order to guarantee that everyone has access to the same right, since otherwise it would be a privilege.
Since this is a minefield in which many people take risks on social networks, so subject to interpretations that silence the most prudent, I think it’s worth trying an explanation. To illustrate, I bring the chewed example of Bolsonaro (candidate in the first place in electoral polls for the presidency of Brazil).
Freedom of expression is the right of every person to manifest himself, to express opposing ideas and to criticize absolutely anyone, whether a saint, a judge or a boss. For example, when Bolsonaro says at the top of his sexism that “I would not employ (men and women) at the same salary” or when he misinterprets the meaning of democracy “the minority has to shut up and bow to the majority”, no matter the size of absurdities, he manifests himself within his right.
Freedom of speech is broad, but not enough to allow offense. This is where things get foggy, since defining what is characterized as offense varies according to the damage done, the heat of the moment and the judge’s point of view, which may or may not determine that there was moral damage.
For example, when reporter Manoela Borges questioned Bolsonaro about the military coup, he replied, “You’re an idiot. You’re an illiterate. You’re censored.” Anyone would consider these words offensive, which would make the verdict, but the reality is so unpredictable that even with so much in its favor, the reporter (who claims to have received no support from Rede TV) was afraid and gave up processing the deputy.
It’s then that we enter the greatest danger of freedom of speech, hate speech. Much more serious than the offense, hate speech is the promotion or incitement of violence to a particular group of people, whether by race, religion or origin. In other words, it’s a defense mechanism against intolerance, although not very effective or supervised.
In this case Bolsonaro is a persistent example, saying things like “The great mistake of the dictatorship was to torture and not to kill”, “I don’t rape you because you don’t deserve”, “I will not fight or discriminate, but if I see two men kissing on the street, I’m going to hit them“, “The son starts to get a little gay, takes a beating, so he changes his behavior.”
In just one sentence, Bolsonaro exalts torture and murder, and in three more violence against women and homosexuals. Unlike the opinion and offense, he explicitly incites violence, which is even more serious because of his position as a deputy. There seems to be no doubt that Bolsonaro has committed several crimes, but things are never so simple, which brings us to the last point, the accusation.
Everyone is free to accuse anyone, provided there is evidence. In saying that a person is homophobic or racist, it is necessary to prove that there was a certain attitude, or the accusation may turn against the accuser in the form of defamation.
Recently Bolsonaro was acquitted of an accusation of racism for his speech about a quilombola community. “The slightest Afrodescendant there weighed seven arrobas.” “They do not do anything! I do not think even for procreative they serve anymore.”
There was no lack of evidence, but a judge (the score was 3–2).
Protecting freedom of expression is as important as condemning hate speech. When Justice allows a presidential candidate openly sympathize with homosexual violence, it allows hatred to spread freely.
It may seem that Bolsonaro’s speech is harmless, just as the cry of part of Atletico Mineiro’s (soccer team) crowd “Cruzeiro do Sul, be careful: Bolsonaro is going to kill gay”, but the truth is that it’s precisely the freedom to openly utter this speech that feeds news such as these:
“Stepfather is accused of killing 10-year-old stepchild for saying he is gay”
“Father kills his own son after he reveals that he is a homosexual”
“Mother tortured son to death for thinking he was gay”
The problem in Brazil is not in Human Rights, as many humans ironically insist. It’s in a failure Justice, conniving and that promotes hatred by not punishing it. A Justice that feeds Bolsonaros, free to spread terror with his example.
