Brazil is a Portuguese-speaking country. Obviously, the brazilian constitution is not written in English. I took the liberty of translating the passage so that people from this community would understand it.

You don't have to believe my translation. Here's a completely independent source I found by searching the web:

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2017

I will cite and copy the relevant parts from it.

TITLE II. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND GUARANTEES
CHAPTER I. INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE RIGHTS AND DUTIES
Article 5
Everyone is equal before the law, with no distinction whatsoever,
guaranteeing to Brazilians and foreigners residing in the Country
the inviolability of the rights to life, liberty, equality, security
and property, on the following terms:

Term IX.
expression of intellectual, artistic, scientific, and communication activity
is free, independent of any censorship or license;

CHAPTER V. SOCIAL COMMUNICATION
Article 220
The expression of thoughts, creation, speech and information,
through whatever form, process or vehicle,
shall not be subject to any restrictions,
observing the provisions of this Constitution.

Paragraph 1.
No law shall contain any provision that may constitute
an impediment to full freedom of the press,
in any medium of social communication,
observing the provisions of art. 5°, IV, V, X, XIII and XIV.

Paragraph 2.
Any and all censorship of a political, ideological and artistic nature
is forbidden.

The terms referenced by the above paragraph:

Term IV.
manifestation of thought is free, but anonymity is forbidden;

Term V.
the right of reply is assured, in proportion to the offense,
as well as compensation for pecuniary or moral damages
or damages to reputation;

Term X.
personal intimacy, private life, honor and reputation are inviolable,
guaranteeing the right to compensation for pecuniary or moral damages
resulting from the violation thereof;

Term XIII.
exercise of any job, trade or profession is free,
observing the professional qualifications that
the law establishes;

Term XIV.
access to information is assured to everyone,
protecting the confidentiality of sources
when necessary for professional activity;

It's really not that hard to read and understand these words. Surely you'll agree that there is not a single case here that says these judges get to censor anyone for any reason at all. If a brazilian is harmed by speech, he gets to answer and to be made whole by compensation, financial or otherwise. He does not get to censor the other guy. I simply cannot find in this entire text a single exception that would allow censorship.

Debating these points here on HN, I've had people cite lesser laws than the constitution, I've had people get into incredibly pedantic arguments over how it's ackshually not really censorship when you delete the political opposition's social media, I've had people appeal to authority, I've had people call me a moron. I've never, not once, had them point out to me where in the fuck it says, in the above text, that these judges can do what they're doing.

> Isn't political debate in Brazil sharply divided by selective absolute Constitionalism in any case?

The whole point of my comments is that everything in this country is like that. Even the supreme court judges, whose literal job is to interpret and apply the constitution, are like that. They "selectively and creatively interpret" the constitution.

This country has no laws. Only the whims of these judges.

> Why leap to the defence of bad faith falsehoods spread by bad losers of a democratic election?

I "leap" to the defense of so called "falsehoods" because I see several things wrong with your loaded question.

This country is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship of the judiciary. Calling what we had an "election" is an insult to elections, it was more like a circus. I do not believe for a second that there was fraud in the US elections, but here the "bad losers" had plenty of reasons to doubt the results, among them the blatant political censorship perpetrated by the very same judges involved in this case.

I was going to elaborate on the above points but ultimately decided against it due to how fruitless it usually is. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if I saw HNers defending the communist Venezuelan dictator's "reelection" and calling the opposition he murdered and exiled "bad losers".