Political laws faced a threat to freedom

of speech during Brazillian presidential

election

Lollpalooza Festival

Over the next six months, Brazil will face an unprecedented political
dispute in a country ideologically polarized by a far-right president, Jair
Bolsonaro, and his main opposition, the former president Lula da Silva
(center-left).

This race will put a light on many similar situations faced by other
democracies around the globe. Such as the difference between freedom
of speech and political propaganda.

The right to express your ideas, or freedom of speech, is guaranteed by

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) in article number
19. The letter states that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion
and expression,” (UN, 1948). The Brazilian constitution also ensures
the right to citizens express their ideas and opinions in article 5. (1988)

Despite these guarantees, Brazillian artists were adverted by the

superior electoral court to not express their political opinions during the
last March, Lollapalooza festival, in Sao Paulo, Brazil (Phillips, 2022)

The main argument used by president Bolsonaro’s lawyers in a lawsuit

against artists and the festival was that these artists were promoting a
political campaign in favor of president Lula (Bolsonaro’s main
opposition) before is it legally authorized by the court.

On the other hand, on the very same weekend, president Jair

Bolsonaro, at a public event in Brasilia, the nation’s capital, said that
he was ready for the presidential race, in clear political propaganda.

According to Brazilian electoral law (Art 36) until August 16th,

politicians and public figures are forbidden to ask for votes for any
candidate. And politicians are forbidden to attend public conventions
with the aim to request votes.

This example underlies how state entities can obstruct the freedom of
speech simply by using as an excuse a law to balance political
competition. Kleis Nielsen (2021) cites the risk of governments
addressing problems such as disinformation as a risk of restricting free
speech.
In a democracy, artists were supposed to be allowed to express their
opinions in favor or against any cause. It’s common to see musicians
and actors in public defending causes. Unfortunately, according to the
Brazilian electoral court, this is currently illegal in Brazil if the
manifestation concerns the president on duty and any of his possible
competitors.

October Brazillian election will be a laboratory to observe, free speech,

the use of false news to manipulate the electoral competition, and how
a polarized democracy balances the right to express ideas, the rules of
the election, and the nasty game of manipulating facts to create this
alternate reality that many polarized radicals rely on.

References

Brasil. (2019). CONSTITUIÇÃO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO

BRASIL DE 1988.
Planalto.gov.br. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/co
nstituicao.htm

Klein, R. (19 C.E., February 21). How to respond to disinformation

while protecting free speech. Reuters Institute for the Study of
Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/how-
respond-disinformation-while-protecting-free-speech

Phillips, T. (2022, March 27). Stars in Brazil voice fury as judge orders
festival to ban “political demonstrations.” The
Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/27/stars-
in-brazil-voice-fury-as-judge-orders-festival-to-ban-political-
demonstrations

United Nations. (1948, December 10). Universal Declaration of Human

Rights. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-
declaration-of-human-rights