According to some interpretations, anonimity is not forbidden, it's "just" that it's not considered protected speech. [1]
In any case, it's true that Brazil doesn't really have real free speech in the sense Americans do. We have a nominal right to free speech per the Constitution, but there are so many loopholes: draconian slander laws, protection to candidates before elections, etc.
Many other countries also do not have free-speech in the strict sense that the US guarantees in its Constitution. For example, in Germany one cannot protest in favor of neo-nazis, and in South Korea one cannot praise the North Korean regime. In the US any kind of speech is allowed, except for rare libel cases (which are extremely difficult to prove in court).
None of that invalidates President Dilma's point. I am actually the first one to criticize Brazil's lack of democracy, for example in the favelas (which are areas controlled by the drug traffickers and not by the state, and thus without real democracy), but in the international sphere she is absolutely right to raise the issue, as Brazil is an US ally and there was no reasonable explanation for the espionage whatsoever, especially to top-level officials. Furthermore, Petrobras is a oil exploration company -- This is effectively industrial espionage.
The parent commenter is correct: This is specific to speech, and not in general. You also have not explained how your argument invalidates President Dilma's UN speech.
(side note: you don't need to be arrogant like that to defend your point. The parent commenter was respectful in his/her response)
Comments
According to some interpretations, anonimity is not forbidden, it's "just" that it's not considered protected speech. [1]
In any case, it's true that Brazil doesn't really have real free speech in the sense Americans do. We have a nominal right to free speech per the Constitution, but there are so many loopholes: draconian slander laws, protection to candidates before elections, etc.
[1] http://www.conjur.com.br/2013-set-06/rodrigo-dornelles-veto-... (in Portuguese)
Many other countries also do not have free-speech in the strict sense that the US guarantees in its Constitution. For example, in Germany one cannot protest in favor of neo-nazis, and in South Korea one cannot praise the North Korean regime. In the US any kind of speech is allowed, except for rare libel cases (which are extremely difficult to prove in court).
None of that invalidates President Dilma's point. I am actually the first one to criticize Brazil's lack of democracy, for example in the favelas (which are areas controlled by the drug traffickers and not by the state, and thus without real democracy), but in the international sphere she is absolutely right to raise the issue, as Brazil is an US ally and there was no reasonable explanation for the espionage whatsoever, especially to top-level officials. Furthermore, Petrobras is a oil exploration company -- This is effectively industrial espionage.
Wrong AGAIN.... Please read the CONSTITUTION[1]
A.G.A.I.N Constitution
In portuguese: "IV - é livre a manifestação do pensamento, sendo vedado o anonimato; "
Translation : - Freedom of speech but anonymity is vetted
[1] = http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituic...
--Edited to do not appear arrogant --
The anonymity concept is one of pillars of privacy and democracy there are several articles about that but this sums up well [1]
So before our 'leader' bashes US to get some popularity votes can we fix our house first?
[1[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/right-anonymity-matter...
The parent commenter is correct: This is specific to speech, and not in general. You also have not explained how your argument invalidates President Dilma's UN speech.
(side note: you don't need to be arrogant like that to defend your point. The parent commenter was respectful in his/her response)