This is the precept that Glenn Greenwald defends. (Photo web copy)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\u201cThe non-argument our lazy thinking throws up against anyone who risks diverging from the dominant tribe,\u201d he famous.<\/p>\n
\u201cHere in the tropics, it seems hard to accept the simple idea that one can disagree 100% with an opinion, but defend \u2018to the death\u2019 its right to expression.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the textual content, Sch\u00fcler cites one other argument utilized by bigots: Glenn defends \u201cAmerican prerogatives,\u201d and the legal guidelines of that nation don’t apply to Brazil.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere, too, there is a mistake,\u201d he famous. \u201cWho says that our Constitution authorizes prior censorship? Or fails to protect due process, the adversarial process, which includes lawyers\u2019 access to case records?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cOr who knows the inviolability of our representatives, inscribed in its Article 53? More than Brazilian, these are civilizing prerogatives, proper of any republic worthy of the name.\u201d<\/p>\n
But it doesn\u2019t cease there.<\/p>\n
According to the columnist of Veja journal, there’s additionally a 3rd trick, which consists of associating those that defend freedom of expression with the assist of \u201cthese vandals\u201d.<\/p>\n
Read: the protesters who dedicated acts of vandalism in Brasilia. \u201cIt\u2019s the logic of all or nothing,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cEither you uncritically defend any repressive measure by the state, otherwise you fail to \u2018defend democracy\u2019.<\/p>\n
Absurd logic.<\/p>\n
One should differentiate who makes use of violence, blocking roads or invading a palace, from those that merely situation an opinion on social networks, despicable as it could be.<\/p>\n
Differentiating these items is a necessary a part of the boundary separating an authoritarian regime from a liberal democracy.\u201d<\/p>\n
For Sch\u00fcler, Glenn\u2019s view \u201csits in a narrow band these days, at once critical of authoritarian views that spring up in society and of the authoritarianism that comes from the state, via infringement on individual rights.\u201d<\/p>\n
This would find yourself \u201cfeeding back political radicalism\u201d.<\/p>\n
The columnist mentions the checklist of politicians and influencers banned from social networks in Brazil.<\/p>\n
\u201cOne of them was Nikolas Ferreira, the country\u2019s most voted young deputy,\u201d he recalled. \u201cWhat exactly was his crime? He asked that investigations into the January acts involve federal officials as well. He danced.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cA deputy should be inviolable in \u2018words, opinions, and votes,\u2019 as the Constitution says, to even ask for the investigations he deems due. In today\u2019s Brazil, he was silenced. Most laugh. Others shrug.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cStill others walk in fear. These things always arise when we accept that it is up to the State to decide about the truth when the crime of opinion comes into play, and when we admit that the courts, which should preserve the law, act with \u2018audacity\u2019 before the law, as I read around.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to Sch\u00fcler, respect for common ideas was essential within the delivery of the fashionable thought of tolerance and particular person rights.<\/p>\n
The story of the thinker Voltaire and the martyrdom of Jean Calas, a Toulouse service provider accused of killing his personal son in 1761, present this.<\/p>\n
\u201cCalas was 63 years old and a Protestant in a city marked by Catholic fanaticism,\u201d the columnist recounted.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe charge was flimsy, but he was sentenced to torture and death. Every part of his body was broken. They stuck a funnel down his throat, pouring 17 gallons of water.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThen they put him on the wheel, where he was stretched to bursting point. He endured it all, repeating that he was innocent. His obstinacy touched Voltaire\u2019s soul.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cHe saw in it all the century\u2019s barbarism, but also the flame of individual dignity. Convinced of his innocence, he makes it a matter of honor for himself to rehabilitate the memory of Jean Calas.\u201d<\/p>\n
What is charming about this tragic episode, says the political scientist, is Voltaire\u2019s \u201cabsurd\u201d perspective.<\/p>\n
\u201cVoltaire was an established man, had just published the Candide, and was about to inaugurate his Ferney Castle. And he didn\u2019t even know Jean Calas.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNevertheless, for two years, he devoted himself to reopening the case simply out of obedience to a principle. Finally, he succeeded.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIn March 1765, three years after the ordeal, the judges in Paris reviewed the conviction, and Louis XV received Calas\u2019 widow at Versailles.\u201d<\/p>\nGlenn Greenwald lives along with his husband, David Miranda, and the 2 sons in Rio de Janeiro. (Photo web copy)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\u201cFollowing this, Voltaire wrote his Treatise on Tolerance. It states simple principles that are still valid today: the idea that everyone deserves a fair trial, and that tolerance is the possible way for us to live in peace and prosper.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd that we must overcome fanaticism, that \u2018dark superstition which induces weak souls to impute crimes to anyone who does not think as they do.’\u201d<\/p>\n
Sch\u00fcler believes that politics replaces faith because the \u201cpublic passion.\u201d \u201cVoltaire\u2019s message remains: by giving up certain principles, we are left only with the uncertain universe of instincts, of our preferences and precarious judgments about good and evil.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cIf in Brazil today we scold a journalist for defending the freedom of expression and the right to due process, it is because we have a problem,\u201d he noticed.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf we passively accept the return of prior censorship, the banning of journalists and members of parliament from the Internet, or even worse things like the blocking of bank accounts, economic pressure, censorship of broadcasters, and even imprisonment for the crime of giving an opinion, it is because we have a very complicated problem.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSomething that will not be solved by an instrumental reason, which says \u2018we need to stretch the Constitution a bit because there is an enemy to be defeated\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n
The political scientist concludes the textual content by saying, \u201cto remember Voltaire is to take the opposite route, which binds us to certain principles made precisely to curb our instincts.\u201d<\/p>\n
According to Sch\u00fcler, \u201cprinciples that are not \u2018American\u2019, but are all there, in the Brazilian Constitution and laws, whose respect is the only possible way to reconcile this country that sometimes we barely manage to recognize.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
![\",](\"https:\/\/www.riotimesonline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/Porugal-Advisory-Banner_1.jpg\")
![\"This](\"https:\/\/www.riotimesonline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/Dsapprove.jpeg\")
![\"Glenn](\"https:\/\/www.riotimesonline.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/Greenwald-and-Miranda-1.jpg\")