Lula’s democracy prosecutor tries to overcome fears – 12/27/2023 – Power

The target of distrust since it was announced by the Union’s attorney general, Jorge Messias, the PNDD (National Prosecutor’s Office for the Defense of Democracy) spent the year 2023 with the aim of proving that it works by curbing disinformation, and not with patrolling or censorship, as feared opponents.

At the same time, it tries to articulate the creation of a “national strategy in defense of democracy”, with information sharing with the states and even other Powers, such as the Legislature.

According to the prosecutor’s office, the idea “is to create a network to defend democracy” with this exchange of information and the “celebration of partnerships and adoption of joint actions”.

The body, an arm of the AGU (Attorney General of the Union) under the Lula (PT) administration, began operating in May, with the aim of meeting the Union’s demands to respond and confront false information about policies and public agents.

Its creation provoked criticism that the government would act to restrict opinions. It ended up being installed in May after receiving suggestions from a working group that involved associations of journalists and judges, lawyers and academics.

In practice, however, the PNDD has become a sector in which members of the government or other bodies of the Union, such as the Legislature and courts, resort to suing those who produce content that they consider offensive or fraudulent.

The agency tries to filter these requests. In a survey of performance requests in September, the agency estimated that there were 50 requests. Of this total, 28 were rejected, another 10 were under analysis and only 12 had been accepted.

The justifications for these rejections are provided for in the ordinance that regulated the body, which highlights the need for it to be demonstrated that the disinformation had a wide reach or repercussion that harms the policy or public agent.

“The rejection of requests occurs when the admissibility requirements are not met, such as the indication of the Union’s interest, proof of actual damage or potential for damage”, says the AGU in a note to Sheet.

“In the case of misinformation, [é requisito] that the content is intentionally disseminated with the aim of causing harm or obtaining undue advantage, as well as generating harm to the Union’s public policy or the legitimacy of public service.”

Nine lawsuits have been filed in court so far. Some of them deal with issues related to the health field. In one of them, PNDD obtained a court decision that removed posts from a website that associates vaccines with AIDS.

Actions were filed against a user who made a publication with false information about supposed side effects of the Covid vaccine and, also, to take down Telegram channels that sell fake vaccine passports.

People who released false information about members of the government were also called into action.

For example, there was a case against a TV presenter who said that Minister Flávio Dino (Justice and Public Security) had a relationship with organized crime when he visited Complexo da Maré, in Rio de Janeiro.

Dino was appointed to the STF (Supreme Federal Court) by Lula and will be sworn in in February.

The PNDD also filed a lawsuit to demand the removal of a video in which a pastor asks the faithful to pray to “break Lula’s jaw.” The case was rejected by the Court, and the agency is appealing.

Based on the CPI report on January 8, the PNDD also made a request for compensation of R$15 million to those convicted of an attempted bomb attack at Brasília airport.

Extrajudicially, the PNDD ended up prioritizing requests for the removal of offensive content against public authorities or for retractions due to untrue information. There were four requests to remove content from the internet. Three were attended to.

One of them was from a TikTok user who said that the Presidency of the Republic ordered the end of private property in the country. Another, from a shooting club page that posted Lula and Minister Alexandre de Moraes, from the STF, as targets.

The Government of São Paulo also removed a publication from the Public Security Secretariat with images of Lula in packages of seized drugs. The PNDD claims that there was “delegitimization of the public service”.

A fourth request was not fulfilled by YouTube. It was a channel that used false information about Moraes, the Army commander and ministers of the STM (Superior Military Court).

The Prosecutor’s Office decided not to prosecute the case because the channel has a low reach.

There were, in addition, three extrajudicial requests for rights of reply.

One of them was directed to Jovem Pan, because a presenter said untrue information that the Ministry of Culture would pay R$20 million to take artists to Beyoncé’s concert. The right of reply was also requested from Revista Oeste, because journalist Alexandre Garcia said that the PT government caused floods in the South.

Following a request from Minister Silvio Almeida (Human Rights), PNDD also notified deputies Nikolas Ferreira (PL-MG) and Filipe Barros (PL-PR) so that there could be a response regarding the dissemination of false information that the government had instituted unisex bathrooms in Brazilian schools.

The case was not prosecuted, and the deputies did not grant the right to respond.

According to the PNDD, requests for removal or rights of response “are made when the disseminated content causes harm to the Union’s public policies or, in the case of involving members of the government, when they affect the very legitimacy of the public function exercised by such members”.

“This is what happened, for example, in the action that the AGU took against a presenter who associated the Minister of Justice, Flávio Dino, with organized crime”, says the agency.

“The PNDD presented in the action that the content associating the minister with the practice of very serious illicit acts, to the detriment of the security and interest of the population, offended not only the moral and personal and subjective honor of the authority, but the very role of Minister of Justice , precisely the authority that, within the scope of the Federal Executive Branch, is institutionally responsible for administering policies to combat organized crime”, he added.