> (d) one's opinion on the morality of a certain alleged episode has no bearing on its legality

While this is true, the related question over whether the law in question is "just", is very much a relavent issue, and something worthy of comment.

Are folks actually questioning the "just" nature of a law, really? If so, which law?

Or are folks questioning whether that law is being falsely applied in this instance?

I think it's the latter. Folks are saying, essentially, that he wasn't part of the conspiracy to commit a cybercrime but that he was working as a journalist who simply received information. That's a very fact-dependent claim. I don't think folks here would say that journalists have blanket immunity to commit cybercrime or anything like that -- this seems like a dispute over the facts. Of which we have basically none.

There are recordings of GG kind of "coordinating" actions of the hacker group right in the middle of the process of extracting private messages. Hacker would ask GG's opinion about what to do next: 1. expand the attack 2. stop and assess what they've gotten so far. Then GG clearly advise them to continue to extract more data. So state attorneys now think this attitude "crossed some lines" with crime to which GG is an accomplice.

> (b) we don't really have all the facts of the case

According to Folha de São Paulo there is a recorded conversation where Greenwald mentions to one of the "hackers" that The Intercept Brasil had saved all the submitted files, hence there was no reason for the hacker group to keep them:

https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2020/01/sem-ter-sido-inv...

The plaintiff considers this is a proof of Greenwald assisting the group.

So do they not have jury nullification in Brazil?

Dude, Brazil wasn't an English colony. They don't even have juries, much less jury nullification.

Jury trials are practiced in many jurisdictions and did not originate in England.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial

Brazil has juries.

Whoops, my bad: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Brazil

But it doesn't sound like Greenwald will get a jury trial.

Thanks for the correction!

(d) is objectively false

It depends on the crime. Sometimes an ‘objective’ view of morality is an element of an offense. E.g. in fraud (and potentially, this charge)

(c) "charged with" and "found guilty of" are vastly different things

To be fair this is the most important comment in this thread. Greenwald was charged by a prosecutor who belongs to the same organization whose misbehavior he exposed, despite not being a target of the investigation. Said prosecutor already pulled a similar trick before.

The government, who just a few days ago was forced to fire a secretary who literally quoted Goebbels in a speech, loves this kind of news-cycle management and is clearly trying to assassinate Greenwald's reputation. Probably nothing will happen, which the government will then use as ammunition to blame the biased, radical left-wing, communist Judiciary, yadda yadda, as they have been doing in their ongoing war against all institutions in the past year.

is it possible to someone to be charged by a prosecutor that NOT belongs to the same organization whose misbehavior he exposed? I understand that everyone in Brazil are charged by Ministerio Público.

What you are saying is: as Greenwald exposed supposed misbehaviour (are you a judge?) by some prosecutors them he can't be prosecuted anymore, which gives him immunity to commit all kind of crimes he wants to.

Unbelievable!!!

I don't mean the MPF. Also the answer to your question is yes.

no it's not.