NOT easy for an academic to criticize the ways of his own govt.
Actually we have been fortunate enough for the past 25 years to enjoy a fairly good level of freedom of speech, arguably better than Americans. There are cases of libel laws used to silence journalists and bloggers, but they usually come from corrupt lower officials, mostly opposition, and private citizens. The federal government (from both parties) has been admirably tolerant of criticism (and the main media have used and abused that freedom against Lula and Dilma).
In fact, most of my public testimonials and press interviews about electronic voting have been criticism of the equipment which is the joy and pride of the Electoral Justice, whose president is a Supreme Court judge; and the criticism basically implies that the Electoral Justice is incompentent if or worse. And in my tweets I have often and harshly critized both the São Paulo education secretariat, the Federal education minister (now Dilma's Chief of Staff) and several other ministries, the Supreme Court and the Judiciary in general, and several other miscellaneous authorities. I have been mostly ignored, of course, but I never felt any pressure to shut up; and ditto for uncountable other critics. (Hm, after writing this list I am now starting to worry...

)
Thx for the explanation of your circumstances... I would NOT know enough to be able to really make any strong arguments, but I know that several posters here, including myself, question your objectivity in regard to your supposed scholarly work related to bitcoin and your presentation of various conclusions here.
Surely I do NOT expect necessarily that you need to explore all options b/c your research could lead you to bear conclusions; however, there just seem to be so many instances in which I have seen and other have pointed out your renditions that seem to be purposefully deceptive and we know that you are smarter than that.. that you know some basic or material facts that are central to the question that you are asking but then you remain dabbling on the fringe with some kinds of extreme facts, even though those facts may be true, they are NOT the main motivating forces.
Well, anyhow, I am glad for you on a professional level if you feel that you are NOT censored in any way even when you are being fairly extensively critical.