A recent survey indicated a lack of consensus among Brazilians regarding the boundaries of freedom of expression.
Respondents were divided on whether they could legally critique the Supreme Court, advocate for military intervention, or voice concerns about electronic voting systems.
Conducted by the Sivis Institute in partnership with the Jumppi Institute, the study involved 1,128 participants representative of the adult Brazilian population.
The results revealed varied perceptions: 37.1% believed publicly stating that the Supreme Court hampers democracy is permissible, while 35.5% disagreed.
On advocating for military intervention, 42.6% thought it was not allowed, with 38.1% believing otherwise.
Concerning the current voting system, 36.3% felt that questioning it was prohibited, while 49% believed there’s no issue.
A significant finding was that 44.6% of respondents at some point feared retaliation from authorities for public criticisms.
Another revelation was that 26.3% felt that Brazil didn’t offer the freedom to express opinions.
Also, 41.2% believed that the government couldn’t bypass laws or institutions to address issues in challenging times.
Legal expert, Igor Costa, clarified the legal stance on several topics raised in the survey.
For instance, camping outside military barracks to criticize the government doesn’t breach the law.
Likewise, questioning the electronic voting system is protected under freedom of expression.
However, using derogatory terms against a minister could be considered an offense, but the aggrieved party must initiate any legal action.
Commenting on transgender participation in women’s sports isn’t illegal unless it involves clear discrimination.
Costa emphasized the importance of not misinterpreting these laws, as doing so could lead to authority abuse.