Mendonça, whom the fascistoids are not afraid, makes a cowardly attack on Moraes

Otherwise, Mr. Mendonça, be careful! Carl Schmitt, the main “jurist” of Nazism, thought that one of the mistakes of liberalism and liberal judges was precisely to ignore certain “consensus” that would translate the will of the majority. A successful blow, he would have brought chaos, uncertainty and insecurity.

Freedom of expression
Mendonça, which gave the shameful vote in favor of the MMA in the networks, was willing to teach what, it seems, the audience that applauded him standing to know:
“If it is true that in the strong rule of law the judiciary has the prerogative of giving the last word, the judiciary has no prerogative to give the first and last word. This situation gives the impression of living in a judicial rule of law. Democracy means ensuring that citizens can freely express themselves, without direct or indirect censorship, without fear of being persecuted by speech.”

The “freedom of expression” which serves the intimidation of judges freedom of expression is not, but coercion in the course of the process; The “freedom of expression” that attributes to the other a crime that has not committed freedom of expression is not, but slander; The “freedom of expression” which is part of the propaganda for the illegitimate seizure of power of freedom of expression is not, but attempt to coup d’état and the abolition of the rule of law; The “freedom of expression” that defends the segregation of people due to race, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin or sexuality freedom of expression is not, but crime punished by Law 7.716.

I can, of course, understand why Mendonça covers the all-on-the way in the networks, which benefits the far right, with the attractive icing of “freedom of expression” as an absolute right. The video produced by Felca is still in the memory of everyone. If Mendonça were right, considering his vote on the regulation of networks, the country would live to dry ice: every pedophile day would be banned from the platforms by court decisions and so many would arrive.

The right to kill others
When a lawyer-general of the Union, Mendonça argued that the churches remained open, clustering people, although we all knew what the favorable conditions were the transmission of the virus. And produced this wonder on April 7, 2021:
“There is no Christianity without community life; there is no Christianity without the house of God; without the day of the Lord. This is why true Christians are never willing to kill them by their faith, but they are always willing to die to guarantee freedom of religion and worship.”

There was no threatening none of religious freedom. The measure sought to lower the contamination curve, with the health system already collapsed. Moreover, even if it can be argued that someone has the right to die for their faith, the then holder of AGU ignored that a person who contaminated himself in the name of what he understood to be love to God could pass the virus to others who had not made that choice.