foreign jurists analyze STF decisions

Foreign and Brazilian jurists, parliamentarians and experts in political science and communication will participate next week in the congress “Freedom of Expression: the Essential Debate”, which will take place on Wednesday and Thursday (27th and 28th) in Brasília.

The main objective is to analyze how the recent performance of Brazilian higher courts – in particular the Federal Supreme Court (STF) and the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) – fits into international standards of respect for freedom of expression. The congress is organized by People’s Gazette and by Ranking of Politicians and has the support of Liberal Institute, Institute of Lawyers of Paraná It is National Federation of Lawyers’ Institutes (Fenia).

Internationally renowned jurists will take part in the event, such as the Portuguese Jónatas Machado, professor at the University of Coimbra and author of the work “Freedom of expression: constitutional dimensions of the public sphere in the social system” (2002), and the North Americans Nadine Strossen, former -president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Todd Henderson, professor at the University of Chicago.

The 2022 elections in Brazil have brought to light crucial questions about the legal treatment given to freedom of expression, inaugurating a new chapter in the national debate on the subject. Important principles of Law have been interpreted in an unorthodox and controversial manner by higher courts. At the event, participants will look at some of the most emblematic cases and decisions of this new situation and analyze them in a technical way.

The congress will feature debaters who adhere to different intellectual currents on freedom of expression and who come from countries with different traditions on the subject. Some of them will bring the perspective most popular in the United States, which defends the “marketplace of ideas” – that is, the notion that the best ideas tend to prevail in an open public space.

In contrast, there will be among the debaters those who adopt a perspective closer to the European tradition, which seeks to balance freedom of expression with other fundamental rights, such as privacy and dignity – an approach that usually results in stricter regulations, especially on sensitive topics.

The congress will be divided into six panels, each with the participation of four experts. Before the event, speakers will receive various support materials, which include details about the case that will help to define the principle analyzed in the panel.

Decisions on Bolsonaro and Lula and the prior censorship of Brasil Paralelo will be analyzed

What situations would justify extraordinary restrictions on freedom of expression? How to differentiate an opinion or criticism from false information or what is commonly defined as “hate speech”? Is prior censorship legitimate in any context?

Issues like these will be addressed in the event’s six panels, which will rely on concrete cases related to the 2022 elections for a technical and in-depth discussion about freedom of expression in Brazil.

One of them will be the electoral propaganda of former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL-RJ) who accused president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT-SP) of wanting to change the abortion law in Brazil. The campaign was based on excerpts from the PT member’s speeches to support the thesis that he would try to change the legislation on unborn children in the country if elected. The video was suspended on the grounds that there was no proof that Lula actually had such intentions and that the statement that he would encourage abortion would be slanderous.

On the other hand, an advertising video from Lula’s campaign will also be analyzed, which stated that the Bolsonaro government could propose a reduction in the minimum wage and other benefits from 2023. The decision taken in this case was also to remove the publications, under the understanding that the accusation made by Lula was false.

Regarding these cases, the debaters will discuss to what extent an electoral speech that tries to predict what a politician will do if elected could be classified as “disinformation” or “fake news”, and whether the suspension of advertisements like these is compatible with the standards international minimum standards for the protection of freedom of expression.

The cases of Lula’s propaganda that associated Bolsonaro with the practice of cannibalism and that of former Revenue Secretary Marcos Cintra, then candidate for vice president for União Brasil, who had his Twitter account suspended for defending the need for an investigation, will also be discussed. about the integrity of the ballot boxes. Participants will debate, based on these cases, the extent to which criticism – even if harsh – of candidates or institutions can be restrained in a democracy.

Another emblematic case to be discussed at the event is that of the streaming company Brasil Paralelo, which suffered prior censorship during the elections because of the documentary “Who ordered Jair Bolsonaro to be killed”, an episode of the series “Investigação Paralela”. The court decision assumed, without based on the content, that the film could help Bolsonaro’s campaign.

The debaters will also analyze the case of businessmen who, by order of the STF, were searched and seized by the Federal Police after having suggested, in a private WhatsApp group, the wish that a coup d’état had occurred in Brazil.

At the end of the event, it is hoped to reach a clearer understanding of how the current guidance of Brazilian higher courts stands in relation to international standards of freedom of expression.

“Recent decisions by higher courts, especially the STF and TSE, have introduced changes to the legal discipline of freedom of expression. These decisions took place in the context of a polarized, divided country, with a degree of tension that intensified as the presidential elections approached. Because of this context, it does not seem that there has been the necessary distance and necessary reflection on the part of the most diverse social, political and legal actors on the reasonableness of these new doctrinal and jurisprudential directions”, explains the Executive President of People’s Gazette, Guilherme Döring Cunha Pereira. “We are talking about one of the pillars of democracy, one of the central elements in maintaining the democratic ethos. Therefore, this lack of reflection and critical analysis does not seem reasonable. The objective of this Congress is to make a contribution in this sense: to debate in depth these new jurisprudential directions.”