There are two completely separate issues going on here. One is Larry Rohter’s disgusting little portrait of Luís Inácio Lula De Silva as the second coming of Boris Yeltsin, which should have led to the firing of whatever hack editor let it into the pages of the U.S. “paper of record.” The other is Lula’s decision (and it was made by him personally) to expel a journalist from the country based on what he has written about the government.

In case it’s not clear, Larry Rohter is scum and a disgrace to the craft of journalism. Lula had here an easy target if he had wanted to, as Al put it, confront North America’s formerly biggest newspaper. He could have followed the brilliant example of his northern neighbor Hugo Chávez Frías and gone on national TV to destroy Rohter for his total lack of credible sources. He could have called Rohter out for his relationship with Roger Noriega, a man cut from the same cloth as the US ambassador who famously called the bloody 1964 military coup a “democratic rebellion.”

Chávez, I would argue, provides a great model for fighting commercial media’s attacks on popular government while still respecting the freedom of expression of all; even oligarchs, even fascists, even gringos. But what did Lula do? Look too far north for guidance, and take a page from the Bush playbook instead.

Trying to expel Rohter from the country was cowardly and authoritarian. In the end, all it will do is backfire for Lula. For the moment, Rohter is in limbo. A judge has blocked the deportation and the case awaits a ruling by a higher court. If the lower court’s ruling is upheld, Lula loses a battle and comes out looking ineffectual. If Lula manages to get Rohter expelled after all, he comes out looking like a narcissistic strongman who can’t handle criticism.

Either way, Rohter goes from being petty hack State Department attack-dog to free speech martyr. And whether intentionally or not, Lula sends the message to journalists in Brazil, at least foreign ones, that preserving “the “honor of the president” is more important than their freedom of expression.

According to the BBC, while the case makes its way through the courts,

The president, who ordered Mr Rohter's visa to be cancelled, has said he may reconsider his decision if the New York Times withdraws the allegations.

Just keeps getting better and better, doesn’t it? Lula is now trying to dictate a newspaper’s content, using his power over the immigration status of its correspondent as leverage. This also makes it clear that this is not about Lula “confronting” a man who has attacked Latin American democracy for years with a stream of dishonest reporting. It is about Lula’s “honor,” nothing else.

Lula’s background is as a leader of the freedom-loving impoverished masses against a totalitarian oligarchy. But now he’s the president of one of the most powerful capitalist economies in the world. There are legitimate and important critiques of his performance to be made in the media. I don’t trust any man as powerful as Lula, no matter how impressive his résumé, to decide who gets to write about him and who doesn’t. That’s not what free speech is about.

I’m disappointed that Lula, who spent so much of his life heroically fighting that “harsh dictatorship” that was marked by censorship and persecution of writers and intellectuals would do something like this. I think all Authentic Journalists, while we continue with the important work of taking down the Rohters of this world and writing about the great accomplishments that Brazil and its president ARE making, should be disappointed, too.

What do y’all think? Am I nitpicking with Lula when Rohter just got what he deserved and there are more important issues at hand? Are my black-and-white notions of freedom of expression too simplistic for the realities of Latin America right now? Or did Lula make a serious mistake that journalists should speak out against?