Video transcript
Jornalista ATACA o RENAN SANTOS e KIM responde NA LATA
192 statements · 1 politicians · June 5, 2026 · 21 min
Statements by Kim Kataguiri. 192 transcribed statements, with topic and stance on the ones the analysis classified. Topics: Governance and Corruption, Freedom of Expression / Censorship, Extremism and Hate Speech, Digital environment regulation.
Speakers
Click any statement beside the video to jump straight to the moment it was said.
Transcript
192 statementsFull transcript of the video. Statements the analysis classified carry topic and stance.
- Neutral
About: investigate allegations of corruption and money laundering against pre-candidates
The pre-candidate of Missão, who is Renan Santos, who is your pre-candidate for the Presidency of the Republic, he may even be unknown to most of the population, but he is known in the news for some allegations, among them influence peddling, money laundering, and he is also suspected of mismanaging the companies he owns, because he drove some companies into bankruptcy.
- Neutral
About: investigate allegations of corruption and money laundering against pre-candidates
First, I wanted to know if you would vouch for him, because once he becomes known, even previously unknown allegations can become known.
- Neutral
About: investigate allegations of corruption and money laundering against pre-candidates
I want to know if you would vouch for him and if someone who bankrupted private companies has the capacity to run a country.
Desconhecido
Deputy, it's...
- Neutral
Desconhecido
About: allow freedom of expression without limits
Do you defend unlimited freedom of expression?
Desconhecido
I'll put it in context.
- Neutral
Desconhecido
About: defend the right of Nazi parties to exist in Germany
An older statement that generated controversy: you defended the right of Nazi parties to exist in Germany.
- Neutral
Desconhecido
About: guarantee freedom of expression on social networks and not adopt a foreign censorship model
I want to know here in Brazil if you think people have the right to say whatever they want on the internet.
- Neutral
Desconhecido
About: combat disinformation and hate crimes on the internet
I say this because hate crimes are committed on the internet and invented news is also published — I won't even call them false, they are deliberately invented reports that can manipulate the population.
- Neutral
Desconhecido
About: allow freedom of expression without limits
So do you still defend freedom of expression without limits?
- Against
About: allow freedom of expression without limits
Look, I have never defended unlimited freedom of expression and I never defended what you said there, quote, "Nazi countries in Germany."
That would not even be possible.
Nazi political parties.
- Against
About: defend Nazi political parties in Germany
I also never defended Nazi political parties in Germany.
About: promote access to and teaching of historical documents of Nazism
What I defended was that people should have access to historical documents about Nazism precisely so that, by understanding the atrocity that Nazism was... Not only should it remain criminalized — I never advocated its decriminalization — but so that people understand the perversity of what it was, the truth of what the Holocaust was, because unfortunately in Brazil there is a trivialization of the Holocaust and of the label 'Nazi'.
Often, and you see this mainly from the left.
When you dissent from leftist public policies, you are labeled a fascist and a Nazi.
This diminishes the historical weight of what Nazism was, of what the Holocaust was, because there is no parallel between a political disagreement within Brazil's democratic framework and branding someone as advocating an industrial-style mass genocide without parallel in history.
So that's the point.
About: impose legal limits on freedom of expression
Second, I never defended unrestricted freedom of expression, not even in the United States itself.
which is the country that grants the broadest scope of freedom of expression — even insults and defamation, for example, are not crimes in the United States — but even there, as a constitutional right, it is not unrestricted.
And the most commonly used example in legal doctrine is that in the United States you do not have the right to shout "fire" inside a movie theater, because you will cause danger and harm to other people, even though, in theory, that might fall under freedom of expression.
About: criminally hold authors of defamation and incitement on the Internet accountable
Here in Brazil, and I defend a doctrine that is more compatible with our legal system, which comes from Roman law and German law, which is that you should be held responsible for the damage you cause when you accuse, for example, someone unjustly of a crime.
About: criminally hold authors of defamation and incitement on the Internet accountable
When you falsely attribute criminal conduct — if I say someone stole and I don't prove it, raped, murdered and I don't prove it — I must be held accountable for that.
About: punish and hold accountable incitement to crime and recruitment for criminal factions
In the same way, if I incite crime, if I recruit people for organized crime, if I tell or encourage people to use drugs, encourage people to... to join the PCC, the Comando Vermelho, for example, I don't think there should be unrestricted freedom of expression, no.
- Neutral
Desconhecido
About: adopt an independent foreign policy toward China and the United States
Just to pick up on this, returning a bit to the question of factions, of criminal organizations, in your assessment, what happens to national sovereignty?
Desconhecido
Isn't there a risk with that decision by the United States?
No.
About: allow each country to define its own terrorist organizations
First, because we consider — I just cited for you the example of Hezbollah — we do not violate the sovereignty of Arab countries by Brazil considering Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization, as practically the whole free world considers.
So it is a unilateral act of sovereignty by the country itself to decide... which organizations your country considers terrorist or non-terrorist?
And it doesn't matter whether they are national or international.
And the United States makes that decision.
Not because it's concerned about organized crime in Brazil, but because it's concerned about the export of drugs to the United States, because it's concerned about money laundering in the United States, because it's concerned about Americans.
Which is another point as well.
Often the Bolsonarist discourse implies — and I've heard this several times.
- Against
About: rely on foreign intervention to combat Brazilian factions
"No, if Lula couldn't fight the criminal factions, then let's leave the problem to Trump."
Trump is not going to send any troops here to exchange gunfire with a faction member.
He will not end organized crime here.
About: combat organized crime through regional partnerships
Only Brazil is capable of facing Brazilian criminal factions.
The United States will confront these factions outside our borders, where it is of interest to the United States.
AI classification from the transcript of a public video. See the Methodology