Analyzed statements
Pela Ordem / Explicação Pessoal
19 classified statements · 1 politicians · March 18, 2026
Statements by Marcos Rogério. 19 excerpts classified by topic and stance. Topics: Legislative Process, Violence Against Women and Protection, Digital environment regulation, Extremism and Hate Speech.
Speakers
- MRMarcos Rogério19
Classified statements
Excerpts classified by topic and stance. This is not the full transcript of the video.
Marcos Rogério
0:00
About: clarify and debate the text approved in the Chamber of Deputies before voting
So, in that respect, Mr. President, if Your Excellency wishes to hear, I have the arguments as to why we need to have a more in-depth debate.
Why it was classified this way · 75% confidence explicitly asks for a 'debate mais aprofundado' and offers arguments to that effect.
Marcos Rogério
0:18
About: approve measures to increase women's safety
Look, no one disputes the importance of discussing measures to combat violence against women — I think it is an important agenda and has our full support — but you cannot, under the argument that we are legislating to protect, create legislation that is open-ended, abstract and which, in fact, represents yet another instrument for content control on social networks.
Why it was classified this way · 95% confidence declares 'tem o nosso apoio total' to the agenda of combating violence against women.
Marcos Rogério
0:50
About: approve measures to regulate and remove harmful content on digital platforms
This is a bill that goes beyond the very core of the debate here.
Why it was classified this way · 90% confidence states that the bill 'avança para além' of the core, a direct critique of its scope.
Marcos Rogério
0:59
About: refer the bill to the Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ) for analysis
First point: it deals with indeterminate legal concepts. This is a matter for the CCJ to debate, this is a matter for the CCJ to examine in depth.
Why it was classified this way · 90% confidence says explicitly 'esse é tema para a CCJ debater'.
Marcos Rogério
1:10
About: define legal concepts of hate speech and misogyny in the law
Hate speech, misogyny... What is the legal definition of that?
Why it was classified this way · 65% confidence asks 'Qual é o conceito jurídico disso?' without proposing direct action.
Marcos Rogério
1:15
About: define legal concepts of hate speech and misogyny in the law
What is the tradition? What is the foundation for that?
Why it was classified this way · 65% confidence asks 'Qual é a tradição? Qual é o fundamento?' describing a doctrinal gap.
Marcos Rogério
1:20
About: define legal concepts of hate speech and misogyny in the law
It is not found in doctrine, it is not found in case law, yet we are legislating and pointing this out as the guiding thread of a policy of repression of crimes.
Why it was classified this way · 75% confidence points to an absence in doctrine, implying the need for a clear legal definition.
Marcos Rogério
1:36
About: impose filtering and traceability obligations on platforms and private messaging services
Another aspect: permanent monitoring of content, traceability in private messaging services.
Why it was classified this way · 90% confidence cites 'monitoramento permanente' and 'rastreabilidade' as a worrisome aspect.
Marcos Rogério
1:42
About: approve measures to regulate and remove harmful content on digital platforms
We are talking about content control! The argument is: "No, we are talking here, because of the crimes and the violence that exist, about digital violence."
Why it was classified this way · 85% confidence labels the proposal as 'controle de conteúdo' despite the argument about digital violence.
Marcos Rogério
1:57
About: approve measures to regulate and remove harmful content on digital platforms
Okay, but the bill cannot determine — nor could it be otherwise — in a clear, objective manner what the scope of the norm is.
Why it was classified this way · 85% confidence states that the bill does not clearly determine the scope of the norm.
Marcos Rogério
2:10
About: approve measures to regulate and remove harmful content on digital platforms
We are dealing with provisions that will receive the most elastic possible interpretation in order to generate content control on the network.
Why it was classified this way · 88% confidence characterizes the bill's provisions as subject to 'elástica' interpretation for control.
Marcos Rogério
2:20
About: approve measures to regulate and remove harmful content on digital platforms
And here it is prior restraint, content control, censorship.
Why it was classified this way · 90% confidence summarizes the effect as 'controle prévio, controle de conteúdo, censura'.
Marcos Rogério
2:25
About: approve measures to regulate and remove harmful content on digital platforms
Who controls? What controls? Who will we be at the mercy of?
Why it was classified this way · 80% confidence asks rhetorically 'Quem controla?' indicating concern about delegation of power.
Marcos Rogério
2:32
About: impose filtering and traceability obligations on platforms and private messaging services
Another situation: it shifts to the platforms themselves the need for a filter, for a control that represents what we have fought against over time, and I took part when we voted on the Marco Civil da Internet law.
Why it was classified this way · 88% confidence says the bill 'joga para as plataformas' the need for filters, an explicit criticism.
Marcos Rogério
2:53
About: guarantee freedom of expression
We spoke of freedom of the network, of net neutrality, of freedom of expression.
Why it was classified this way · 90% confidence recalls a historical defense of 'liberdade de rede' and 'neutralidade de rede'.
Marcos Rogério
3:07
About: approve measures to regulate and remove harmful content on digital platforms
Are there limits? Yes. But we cannot approve a bill on the grounds that it is intended to protect women when, in truth, it opens the way to content control and control of the networks.
Why it was classified this way · 90% confidence warns that the proposal becomes a 'caminho aberto para o controle de conteúdo'.
Marcos Rogério
3:33
About: approve measures to increase women's safety
So, I would make an appeal to Your Excellency, without entering into further detail on the issues of this bill, that it be referred to the CCJ, since it has not passed through any Committee, so that we can have this debate in the appropriate forum and bring to the Plenary a mature bill, a bill with a truly secure text that gives us the confidence to vote, because, I repeat, Mr. President, I am in favor of toughening criminal and civil legislation with respect to crimes, especially crimes against women.
Why it was classified this way · 95% confidence clearly states 'sou a favor de endurecer a legislação penal, civil' against crimes.
Marcos Rogério
4:18
About: approve measures to increase women's safety
My state, for example, has extremely high rates and they must be tackled.
Why it was classified this way · 80% confidence justifies the position by citing high rates in his state and the need to combat them.
Marcos Rogério
4:28
About: approve measures to regulate and remove harmful content on digital platforms
But we cannot use a situation like this to pass legislation that is indeterminate in nature and that represents a project of censorship, a project of control.
Why it was classified this way · 92% confidence says indeterminate legislation that would represent 'censura' should not be approved.
AI classification from the transcript of a public video. See the Methodology