Opinion – Helio Beltrão: Attention: you cannot say ‘Brazil was stolen’

In the middle of Sunday, a buzz on social media reported that Professor Marcos Cintra’s account had been censored. I immediately suspected fake news; it was true. When trying to access the account, a white screen with a stamp “account suspended”, reminiscent of the military regime.

The chief sheriff of Brazil, Alexandre de Moraes, had ordered Twitter to block the quiet professor’s account in a maximum of two hours, under penalty of a fine of R$100,000.

The pace with which censorship has spread is impressive. Three weeks ago, Minister Cármen Lúcia, visibly embarrassed, warned – in her affirmative preliminary vote in the TSE that prohibited the exhibition of a documentary by Brasil Paralelo about the stab wound to Jair Bolsonaro in 2018 – to the fact that “it cannot be allowed the return of censorship under any argument”. She also stated that this type of measure can be a medicine or a poison and that the Federal Constitution and freedom of expression must be respected, without censorship. The minister seemed to seek comfort in the fact that the decision would only be valid until October 31 last. She was wrong.

Our history is littered with occasions on which reputable and numerous opinion makers, including journalists and members of the elite, chose to support or rationalize a “small” and “one-off” violation of the constitutional rules of the game in order to combat an imminent danger, a threat to values ​​or the status quo. Fear induces an opportunism that rationalizes the violation: “The ends justify the means”, “it’s only once”, “it’s for a short period”.

Hayek explains in “The Road to Serfdom” how, in challenging times, good people choose to cede more power to the “strong man” who will protect order and democracy. Later on, they can replace it if it is exceeded, they imagine. Looking back, the collective misconception is obvious.

But, unfortunately, few realize the point at which the slippery slope of authoritarianism begins. For me and for others like the coherent retired STF minister Marco Aurélio Mello, it started with the inquiry at the end of the world, in 2019. For many others, it can start with the visit of the Federal Police to Professor Marcos Cintra.

Opportunities to awaken were not lacking. The sheriff opened an ex officio investigation against businessmen due to private conversations, persecuted those who gave a thumbs up in a WhatsApp group, blocked social networks of citizens such as the police and arrested citizens for opinion.

Among those censored are the first and third most voted deputies, who have constitutional immunity for their opinions. The other justices of the courts did not comment. Some will be in the United States next week to talk about democracy and freedom of expression. The OAB remains silent.

In the case of prior censorship of the Brasil Paralelo documentary, the censors did not even know the content of the piece. The infamous Solange Hernandes of the Public Entertainment Censorship Division, who applied the stamps before movie screenings in the 1970s and 1980s, at least watched films before approving or censoring.

Brazil is now in the category of countries like China, Russia, Venezuela and Turkey that persecute and censor citizens for opinions and criticism. Last month, Turkish President Recep Erdogan succeeded in making it a law to criminalize the spread of fake news. Criticism, lies and fake news are everywhere; censorship, blocking of accounts, gag dissent and illegal processes, on the other hand, inhabit dictatorships.

What was Professor Cintra’s “crime”? Questioning on the basis of your reasonable conviction some curious statistical facts of the election. The hammer does not want to explain, but to hammer. The Brazilian internet has become an intranet like the Chinese one: the phrase “Brazil was stolen” is blocked by all providers. Where are we going to stop?