> Sure, a law is unconstitutional because you say so. You are the appointed authority to interpret the law...

I'm not required to be some "law authority" to interpret the law and express my opinions on it.

> You use the fact that some right exist to accuse laws of being unconstitutional

I use the fact that the constitution says something, and that lesser laws say other things that are in complete opposition to it. Something that obviously should not be allowed to happen. If some lower law contradicts the goddamn constitution, obviously the constitution is supposed to prevail and the lesser law is supposed to be invalidated.

You make it sound like you need 6 years of legal education to grasp this simple concept. That's literally what "unconstitutional" means, you know. It's something that contradicts the constitution.

> You cannot say that a criminal cannot be jailed because he has the right of freedom

Except I said nothing of the sort. I said that some lesser law defines something to be a crime, and the constitution explicitly defines it to be a non crime. Therefore the lesser law is invalid and it is not a crime. He cannot be jailed because he is not actually a criminal.

> If you check with law specialists, nobody would agree with you, except a small minority.

And who are these "law specialists" you're citing? ... A criminal lawyer who sells a book on the subject. Her argument is literally that "nazism represents evil" and therefore society should ignore what's written on the law. The mere fact she used that argument shows that she's aware of what the constitution says. Ironically, your law expert admits that I'm right. She just thinks that my entire position should be straight up ignored because nazism is too evil. She knows it's unconstitutional but she wants it done anyway. Truly mind boggling.

Look, I don't even care. Go ahead and ban the nazis. I don't actually have a problem with that so long as you remember to apply the exact same standard to the communists. If you fail to do that, I'm gonna start asking hard questions.

> You should learn more about hermeneutics if you want to discuss law interpretation.

Nah, I got better things to do. Besides, this country doesn't actually have laws anyway. Whatever the supreme court judges say is the real law. Why learn all this nonsense when they just ignore it anyway? The judge-king himself makes an appearance in your article and lays down the law: "free speech does not authorize the abominable and criminal nazism apologia". There you go. There's no point in even discussing it anymore. What's the point of learning about the brazilian constitution? Just watch what this guy says on Twitter instead.

> Historical and social context, the law objective and other things are also taken into account.

I've seen this exact same argument so many times now, it's never convincing. The net neutrality laws immediately come to mind. "Oh no, see here, we worded it this way in order to ban the so called fast lanes, it's not meant to be used to stop the telecoms from charging you differently based on what services you use, even though the text of the law literally says that". That's just hilariously incoherent but what can you do? That's "law experts" for you. More like lobbyists.

Maybe write the law properly in the first place so that it's precisely worded and affords no misunderstandings. That way you don't need to discuss some nebulous "spirit" of the law.

> So, you are saying that (2) is worse than (1)!?

You bet I am. If you think otherwise then you must be unaware of the atrocities committed by communist regimes all over the world. Here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...

You bet it's worse. Nazis eradicated others? Communists exterminated themselves through misery, famine and forced labor. They've killed more people than any other regime. Their own people, not some "other" ethnic group. About half of those many millions were killed by starvation. That's the nonsense you're defending.

You should talk to someone who lived in those former soviet bloc countries sometime. I've seen plenty of them posting on HN over the years. Go on, ask them about the means of production.

> Defending a nazi party would mean inciting discrimination.

Not really. Defending the existence of a political party means exactly that: defending its right to exist. If the party then engages in illegal conduct, then that's a separate crime that happens after the party has been officially recognized by the law. There's absolutely no contradiction there. You can easily avoid contradicting the brazilian constitution by allowing them to organize and then imprisoning them when they inevitably commit actual crimes. You'd have to actually care about the constitution to do that though. Apparently nobody does.