Gilmar Mendes says that the thesis of holding newspapers accountable needs to be improved

Minister Gilmar Mendes, of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), expressed the need to improve the thesis that holds newspapers responsible for statements made by interviewees. After the STF’s decision in November, Mendes defended possible adjustments to the thesis to make it applicable in different situations.

The Court ruled, on November 29, that newspapers can be held civilly liable for libel, slander and defamation in statements made by interviewees. However, Mendes highlighted the importance of improving the thesis to ensure its application in different contexts.

“The established thesis may have inadequacies when applied to other situations. The problem, it seems to me, is not in the decision in the ruling [pronunciamento judicial]but eventually in the thesis that is attempted to be transposed”, he said in an interview published this Thursday (7) by Power 360.

Journalistic entities, experts and parliamentarians criticized the decision, arguing that it could harm the work of journalists, especially in live interviews. The ambiguity of the decision raises concerns about the possibility of punishing publications based on subjective criteria.

In response to criticism, Gilmar Mendes suggested that adjustments to the rule could be made through “embargoes for clarification”, a resource to contest omissions in the Court’s decision. He emphasized that institutions representing the media, such as the National Association of Newspapers (ANJ), could present this resource.

“The thesis can be adapted through declaration embargoes so that it is properly clarified”, stated Mendes.

The STF’s decision originated in a specific case involving the newspaper Diário de Pernambuco and an interview published in 1995. The thesis established by the Court defined the conditions for the civil liability of newspapers in cases of false accusations made by interviewees.

“In the event of publication of an interview in which the interviewee falsely imputes a crime to a third party, the journalistic company can only be held civilly liable if: (i) at the time of publication, there was concrete evidence that the imputation was false; and (ii) the vehicle failed to observe the duty of care in verifying the veracity of the facts and in disclosing the existence of such evidence”, says the STF in its thesis.