Talk:Censorship in Brazil

Brazil: Government and laws High‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Government and Laws of Brazil task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Journalism High‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Freedom of speech Mid‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Open (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles

Self-censorship is self-contradictory as statement.[edit]

The article mentions Globo and Record censored "their own work". It doesn't make sense, saying some institution censors its own voice. If you freely decide not to say something you were not censored.

I think the whole "Self-censorship" section should be removed, as it's a contradiction in its own name.

--Tiago Rinck Caveden (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edited[edit]

I took the freedom of removing an obvious troll. "The lack of internet censorship" As a brazilian i found it offending since he stated that we shouldn't be allowed to access it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.1.59.224 (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition of anonymity[edit]

The citation given does not state the prohibition of anonymity is only for journalists. As far as I understand it, even internet anonymity is prohibited, although I haven't seen this enforced. Considering public opinion of internet freedom of speech and the blogs bluring the line between journalists and non-journalists, I find this important. Even being a brazilian, I am not a lawyer, so I don't really know, if any of you have any lawyer info that anonyymity is only prohibited for journalists, yay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.123.138.55 (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing specific about journalists' anonimity on the Constitution, or a specific law regarding journalists on this kind of behavior and intent, since the law we had before was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (i forgot in what year, sorry). Article 5, IV, says you can freely express your thoughts as long as your not anonimous. The purpose of it is so people can be held accountable by civil or penal court on their speech. This applies for both outside of virtual, as on the internet. This is why ISPs have to store the IP data for a certain amount of time. Also not a laywer, but have studied it and work closely with legislation. 179.235.198.79 (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Cintra[edit]

I don't think Marcos Cintra was a congressman when the twitter ban was applied. But he was one before. I don't know if this was what the author meant, but if it was, i believe it should be stated more clearly. 179.235.198.79 (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]