Networks will not have to list all Bolsonaro followers to the STF

Minister Alexandre de Moraes determined this Thursday (10) that Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube inform the Federal Supreme Court (STF) about all posts by former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL) about elections, ballot boxes electronic media, the Superior Electoral Court, the Armed Forces and the Court itself. He, however, did not demand that social networks also list all of Bolsonaro’s millions of followers on the platforms, as initially requested by the Attorney General’s Office (PGR).

After the negative repercussions of the request, the body backtracked and asked the minister that the technology companies only list the protesters accused of the invasion and depredation of the headquarters of the Powers, on January 8, who follow (or have already followed) the former president and also those, from the same group, who reposted Bolsonaro’s publications about polls and elections. This data will be incorporated into the inquiry, conducted by Moraes, on the alleged instigators of the acts of vandalism that took place in Brasília.

Bolsonaro is also investigated in this inquiry and therefore, at the request of the PGR, Moraes also determined that the networks list his posts about the elections. In addition, Facebook must send the video that he posted, and soon after deleted, on January 11, in which a state attorney said that Lula would not have been elected by the Brazilian people, but “chosen by the electoral service, by the ministers of the STF and by the ministers of the Superior Electoral Court”.

The defense of the former president opined against sending this material. Regarding the list of all followers, he classified the measure as “a poorly disguised form of political monitoring of supporters of the former president, resulting in an odious and anachronistic form of true ideological patrolling”.

Deputy prosecutor Carlos Frederico Santos, who conducts investigations into the January 8 incident at the PGR, said at the time that Bolsonaro’s millions of followers would not be investigated. The objective, according to him, would be “to obtain information that allows evaluating the content and the dimension reached by the former president’s publications in relation to the events that occurred on January 8 on social networks”, recognizing that many people follow the former president “for curiosity, information, professional or academic motivation or different interests”.

With the criticism of the request, he sent a new petition to Moraes, reducing the reach, to collect only data from the accused who follow or repost Bolsonaro’s publications about the elections.

Investigations

The former president is investigated, in the investigation, for the crime of inciting, publicly, animosity between the Armed Forces, or of them against constitutional powers, civil institutions or society, whose sentence is of up to 6 months, which does not lead to prison in closed regime. But the PGR says that, depending on the information, he could be investigated for more crimes.

Moraes agreed with the new requests and determined that the networks provide the information. “In the conduct recorded on video, the presence of elements indicative of criminal materiality is verified, as well as evidence of authorship, in relation to the offense of art. 286 of the Penal Code, so that the set of evidence already gathered in the case file brings up the need for state intervention, with the imposition of necessary measures for its investigation”, wrote the minister.

It is the second time that the PGR has backtracked on a request related to the investigation into the video posted by Bolsonaro. Initially, the body had passed on to the STF a request by members of the Federal Public Ministry to hear “experts in political communication of extremist movements”, or in “monitoring groups of supporters” of Bolsonaro, to assess the influence he would have on Bolsonaro. January 8 protesters. The measure was even authorized by Moraes, but Carlos Frederico later told the minister that there would be “extreme difficulty” in defining and listening to these specialists.