Freedom at Risk: Past and Present in Debate

The film I'm Still Here, inspired by a mother’s struggle during the military dictatorship, can be considered a portrait of Brazil in the past and a reflection of what we are experiencing today. Although the country has changed since the days of military repression, the film touches on issues that are still very current: oppression, lack of freedom of expression, control over information, and the cost of truth. When we remember the past, it is impossible not to ask ourselves: are we somehow reliving these same dilemmas, but in a new, more technological, and less visible guise?

In contemporary Brazil, freedom of expression, one of the pillars of democracy, has been challenged by several factors. The regulation of digital media and the growing number of restrictions on communication and the right to protest raises questions about the extent of each citizen's freedom.

The interventions of the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) in cases involving political demonstrations and the impact of “fake news” show how the current scenario is similar, in certain aspects, to the times of repression addressed in the film. The question that remains is: who decides what is true? And who monitors those who “monitor” the truth?

The recent conviction of protesters who participated in the January 8, 2023, protests as part of a movement to challenge the government reflects a scenario in which the actions of a group are widespread and often held collectively responsible, which may seem unfair. After all, what justifies the difference in sentences between those involving more serious crimes, such as homicide, and those related to political protests, such as those in January? The interpretation of “threat to democracy” and “public order” is still under debate, especially when many question whether the original protest was, in fact, peaceful or whether there was manipulation by infiltrators. But who defines which demonstration is legitimate and which is dangerous?

In the current context, the limitations on freedom of expression are especially visible on digital platforms, where important debates about the country's future are constantly censored, whether by government intervention, social media moderation, or the “fake news” policy. This reality is interconnected with the issues addressed in the film, which reflects a period in which truth and freedom were under constant surveillance under the pretext of preserving public order. But what is “public order”? Would it be possible to guarantee order without violating fundamental rights? Shouldn’t we, as a society, seek a fairer balance between freedom of expression and the need to protect the truth?

What if government transparency were just a distant and utopian concept, as the film suggests when it deals with the acts of repression of the 1970s, but which, in some way, still applies to the current scenario? The debate about the “Ministry of Truth” or the regulation of information is a legitimate attempt to avoid distortions of reality, but who is responsible for defining which truth should be accepted? In a scenario where many wonder whether the information they receive is reliable, wouldn’t this be a crucial moment to reflect on the consequences of controlling, filtering, or limiting access to information?

In Brazil, where protests and demonstrations continue to take place, it is essential to ask ourselves: are we in a moment of evolution or repetition? To what extent is the repression of freedom of expression, whether on the streets or digital platforms, not creating a cycle of control that resembles that experienced in the past? What are we losing when freedom is restricted in the name of security, order, or truth? These are the questions that the film I'm Still Here and the current reality challenge us to reflect on, without easy answers, but with the certainty that, as a society, we must ensure that debate remains free, fair, and, above all, transparent.

Authorial article by Bruna Brutscher