The Blatant Hypocrisy: Traffickers Can, Politicians Can’t

First of all, let’s get to the undeniable facts that expose this national shame. During the mega-operation against Red Command in Rio de Janeiro, several traffickers killed in confrontations had active social media profiles. That is, until the moment of death, they posted freely.

For example, the trafficker known as “Japinha do CV” maintained thousands of followers and publicly displayed rifles. Similarly, Yago Ravel Rodrigues filmed himself carrying heavy weaponry in public areas. Consequently, during all this time, no judicial authority ordered their profiles blocked.

Marcinho VP: CV Leader Has Active Profile

Additionally, the most emblematic case is Márcio Nepomuceno, Marcinho VP, historic leader of Red Command. Currently imprisoned, he maintains an active Instagram profile managed by people close to him. In this sense, the profile even promotes books written by the criminal, who was featured at FLIP literary festival.

Therefore, one of the biggest drug traffickers in Brazilian history has freedom for literary promotion, while elected politicians are censored. That is, in 2025 Brazil, being a criminal faction leader guarantees more freedom of expression than being a conservative parliamentarian.

Daniel Silveira: Former Deputy Censored for Years

Condemned for Words, Silenced Forever

On the other hand, let’s see the treatment given to political figures. Daniel Silveira, former deputy convicted for statements about the Supreme Court, remains with all social media accounts blocked. Additionally, he’s forbidden from giving interviews, even after serving his sentence.

Consequently, while Marcinho VP can have books promoted and request TV Record interviews, Silveira remains gagged. Therefore, the message is clear: criticizing the Supreme Court is a more serious crime than leading an organization responsible for thousands of deaths.

The Frightening Precedent

Moreover, this permanent censorship creates an extremely dangerous precedent. In this sense, it establishes that even after serving conviction, a citizen can remain eternally deprived of fundamental rights. That is, life sentence disguised as precautionary measure.

Therefore, we’re no longer talking about Justice, but about institutionalized political persecution. Consequently, any resemblance to authoritarian regimes is not mere coincidence.

January 8th Prisoners: Second-Class Citizens

Treatment Worse Than Common Criminals

First of all, defendants from January 8th acts receive Kafkaesque treatment. Beyond severe convictions, they’re systematically forbidden from using social media or giving interviews. In this sense, not even common prisoners suffer such draconian restrictions.

For example, Filipe Martins, former presidential advisor not yet convicted, is prevented from publicly speaking. Additionally, the Supreme Court went so far as to censor newspapers, denying interview requests from Folha de S.Paulo, Poder360, and Gazeta do Povo.

When Judiciary Becomes Press Censor

Consequently, we’re not just facing censorship of defendants, but censorship of the press itself. In this context, the Judiciary determines which interviews can or cannot be published. That is, absolute control over information and public debate.

Therefore, according to jurist Fabricio Rebelo, “this patent difference in treatment enormously strengthens the idea that processes integrate a big ‘show trial,’ where the purpose isn’t to punish according to conduct, but to give public example to discourage insurgency.” Consequently, Justice becomes an instrument of political intimidation.

Bolsonaro: Former President More Censored Than Any Trafficker

Forbidden to Speak Even Through Third Parties

Moreover, former President Jair Bolsonaro himself was forbidden from posting on social media. Additionally, censorship extends even when he speaks through others’ profiles. In this sense, in July 2025, Moraes interpreted that participating online in an event where the Supreme Court was criticized violated the determination.

That is, Bolsonaro can’t express himself either directly or through third parties. Consequently, he’s more gagged than any criminal in Brazilian history. Therefore, in current Brazil, a former president has fewer rights than a faction leader.

The Expanded Censorship

On the other hand, this expansive interpretation creates an absurd situation. In this sense, any public manifestation by Bolsonaro, even without using his own networks, can be considered non-compliance. Consequently, total and absolute censorship is established.

Therefore, we have a democratically elected former president prevented from communicating with citizens, while criminal factions maintain robust digital presence. That is, completely inverted priorities.

Censored Parliamentarians: 13 Elected Officials Gagged

When Democracy Becomes a Joke

First, a survey by Gazeta do Povo reveals that at least 13 deputies and senators have had profiles blocked since 2019. Moreover, some aren’t even in Supreme Court inquiries. That is, preventive censorship based on assumptions about future publications.

For example, parliamentarians like Nikolas Ferreira, Gustavo Gayer, Bia Kicis, and others were censored under allegation they could “represent risk to public order.” Consequently, judges now have crystal balls to predict future crimes and censor preventively.

Thought Crime

Additionally, this logic establishes true “thought crime.” In this sense, people are punished not for what they did, but for what they supposedly might do. Therefore, basic principles of Criminal Law are thrown in the trash.

Consequently, according to lawyer André Marsiglia, “what’s wanted is to create a specific punishment, directed only at right-wing people, to condemn them to no longer exercise their political functions.” That is, lawfare in the vein.

Deolane Bezerra: Investigated Influencer Maintains 22 Million Followers

Connections with Trafficking? No Problem!

On the other hand, let’s see how influencers linked to crime are treated. Deolane Bezerra, with over 22 million followers (more than Nikolas Ferreira), was investigated for relations with traffickers and money laundering. However, she never suffered any social media restrictions.

For example, in February 2024, she displayed a chain belonging to a traffic chief from Complexo da Maré. Additionally, Coaf reports showed transfers from Marcola’s sister-in-law to accounts linked to her. Consequently, zero consequences for digital presence.

Selective Justice in Action

Moreover, while politicians are censored for “potential risk,” a person investigated for connections with organized crime maintains intact platform. In this sense, there couldn’t be a clearer example of double standards.

Therefore, inevitable conclusion: the criterion isn’t conduct severity, but political alignment. Consequently, Justice stops being blind and starts deliberately choosing its victims.

Fernandinho Beira-Mar vs. Right-Wing: Who Has More Freedom?

Trafficker Gives Interview, Politician Doesn’t

First, it’s worth remembering that Fernandinho Beira-Mar, one of the most dangerous traffickers in Brazilian history, gave multiple televised interviews. In this sense, the Judiciary never saw a problem giving voice to a convicted criminal.

On the other hand, Daniel Silveira, Filipe Martins, and so many others are forbidden from speaking to the press. Consequently, traffickers have more media access than politicians. That is, completely insane priorities.

What This Reveals

Additionally, this comparison reveals that the criterion isn’t “criminal severity” or “social risk.” Actually, differential treatment is based purely on political orientation. Therefore, we’re not facing Justice, but institutionalized ideological persecution.

Consequently, according to Marsiglia, “even people incarcerated with definitive convictions for very serious crimes have the right to speak. But for right-wing politicians, this is treated as a crime apart.” That is, they created a special category of citizen without rights.

Lula’s Precedent: Blatant Double Standards

When He Was Imprisoned, Everything Was Allowed

First, Marsiglia recalls a crucial fact: “Lula could give interviews when he was imprisoned.” In this sense, a president convicted in second instance maintained full media access. Additionally, there was never restriction on his public manifestations.

On the other hand, January 8th defendants, many without definitive conviction, are completely gagged. Consequently, there couldn’t be a clearer demonstration of partisan justice.

MST Invades, Right-Wing is Censored

Moreover, Marsiglia points out: “there was no punishment of this type to left-wing protesters when they took public buildings, with MST acts.” Therefore, invasions of public buildings by the left are tolerated, while right-wing demonstrations generate relentless persecution.

Consequently, it becomes crystal clear that the criterion isn’t legality, but political alignment. That is, law applies to some, not to others. Therefore, end of Rule of Law, replaced by selective State of Exception.

Show Trial: When Justice Becomes Political Spectacle

It’s Not About Justice, It’s About Example

First, according to Fabricio Rebelo, January 8th processes are true “show trials” – spectacle judgments. In this sense, the objective isn’t to apply proportional justice, but to “give public example to society, especially a specific political segment.”

Consequently, sentences and restrictions don’t relate to conduct severity, but to need for intimidation. Therefore, Justice becomes an instrument of social and political control.

Discourage “Insurgency”

Additionally, the explicit objective is to “discourage any type of similar insurgency.” That is, it’s not about punishing specific crimes, but terrorizing the population so they don’t dare challenge authorities.

Consequently, we’re facing institutionalized judicial terrorism. Therefore, classic method of authoritarian regimes: make brutal public examples to intimidate masses.

The Non-Existent Legal Basis

“Creative” Interpretations of Criminal Procedure Code

First, these censorships are based on “expansive interpretations” of provisions about precautionary measures in the Criminal Procedure Code. In this sense, instruments designed for exceptional situations become the rule against political adversaries.

On the other hand, according to Rebelo, “almost nothing gathered from processes sustains itself, whether in convictions or their conduct, which includes imposing restrictive measures without any basis.” Consequently, legal construction on sand.

Selective Jurisprudence

Additionally, precedents are applied only when convenient. In this sense, when it favors the left, principles are broad. On the other hand, when it affects the right, the most restrictive interpretation possible. Therefore, Law becomes moldable clay according to political interest.

Consequently, citizens no longer know which rules apply. That is, legal certainty – pillar of any Rule of Law – simply ceased to exist.

Organized Crime Says Thank You

While Judiciary Persecutes Politics…

First, while judicial resources are spent persecuting parliamentarians for posts, organized crime prospers on social media. In this sense, completely inverted priorities reveal a completely dysfunctional system.

For example, traffickers make crime apology, display weapons, recruit youth – all this digitally documented. However, judicial authorities focus energy on censoring conservative politicians. Consequently, real criminals operate freely while political adversaries are persecuted.

The Real Risk to Democracy

Additionally, it’s worth questioning: which represents greater risk to Brazilian democracy? Criminal factions that control territories, kill thousands, and corrupt institutions? Or conservative politicians who criticize the Supreme Court?

Therefore, the judicial system’s answer is clear: conservatives are a greater threat than organized crime. Consequently, this priority inversion isn’t a bug, it’s a feature – deliberate functionality of a partisan system.

The Authoritarian Escalation

Today Social Media, Tomorrow…

First, censorship rarely stops where it started. In this sense, today it’s social media, tomorrow it could be private meetings, family conversations, even thoughts. On the other hand, it may seem like an exaggeration, but History shows that authoritarianism escalates gradually.

Additionally, each new restriction normalizes the previous one. Consequently, society gets used to loss of freedoms. Therefore, when it finally wakes up to the gravity, it’s usually too late.

The Democracy Test

Moreover, true democracy is measured not by how it treats allies, but by how it treats adversaries. In this sense, a system that persecutes half the political spectrum while tolerating criminals isn’t democracy – it’s democratic farce.

Consequently, 2025 Brazil faces the definitive test: either restore equality before law and fundamental freedoms, or accept sliding into authoritarianism disguised as legality.

The Complicit Silence

Where Is Traditional Media?

First, the deafening silence of mainstream media about these abuses is notable. In this sense, outlets that should defend press freedom ignore or minimize systematic censorship.

On the other hand, when censorship affected the left, the same outlets cried out against authoritarianism. Consequently, it’s clear that principles are applied selectively according to ideological convenience.

Anesthetized Civil Society

Additionally, a significant portion of civil society remains indifferent or even supports censorship. In this sense, as long as it hits the “right side,” violations are tolerated or celebrated. Consequently, democratic principles become political bargaining chips.

Therefore, as Niemöller warned: “First they came for the communists, and I said nothing… when they came for me, there was no one left to protest.” That is, indifference today guarantees persecution tomorrow.

Conclusion: The Exposed Farce

In summary, there’s no way to deny the glaring evidence: Brazilian Judiciary applies selective justice based on political criteria. First, traffickers maintain full digital freedom while politicians are systematically censored.

Additionally, this hypocrisy isn’t accidental – it’s systematic and deliberate. Consequently, it reveals a power project that uses judicial apparatus to silence adversaries while tolerating allies, even when they’re criminals.

Therefore, each Brazilian must decide: accept living in a country where Justice serves ideology instead of law? Or will demand equal treatment for all, regardless of political position?

Moreover, silence is no longer an option. In this sense, whoever remains silent before these aberrations becomes complicit in the destruction of the Rule of Law. Consequently, responsibility to react falls on each citizen who still values freedom.

What about you? Will you keep pretending normalcy while democracy is destroyed? Or will you demand that Justice be truly blind, applying the same rules for traffickers and politicians, for left and right?

Want to keep exposing the system’s hypocrisy and fighting for fundamental freedoms? Follow our analyses without fear of pointing out contradictions. After all, only uncomfortable truth can restore true Justice!