Opposition condemns STF decision that penalizes press

Opposition parliamentarians condemned, this Wednesday (29), the decision of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) which determines that the press can be held responsible for statements made by interviewees. By 9 votes to 2, the Supreme Court approved the thesis, seen as censorship of the press, by deciding against Diário de Pernambuco due to an interview published in 1995.

Wanted by People’s Gazettefederal deputy Filipe Barros (PL-PR) said that this is “another decision by the STF that kills freedom of expression, this time, affecting freedom of the press”.

“Part of the media consortium celebrated and defended Minister Alexandre de Moraes with each new arbitrary act committed against individuals on the right. We always warned that the dangerous precedents set would turn against the press. Well, it happened”, added the deputy.

Also sought after by People’s Gazettedeputy Marcel van Hattem (Novo-RS) said that “this is the most absurd attack on press freedom since the military regime”.

“Threatening the press, gagging it, preventing it from publishing interviews out of fear that the interviewee might be lying is a form of censorship and this is unfortunately what the STF is promoting in our country. We are in a time of state of exception in which the STF decides what is and what is not freedom”, added van Hattem.

When talking to the Gazettedeputy Bia Kicis (PL-DF) recalled that there are already legal provisions that punish crimes against honor, such as those that could eventually be committed by someone during a live interview, for example.

“The decision of the Federal Supreme Court that makes press vehicles responsible for the interviewee’s speech that may contain some untrue imputation should lead to the practice of self-censorship. What about live interviews in which the content of the opinions to be expressed is not known? How know in advance whether an allegation is false or true? It would be better to respect freedom of the press and punish those who commit so-called crimes against honor in the manner already provided for in the legal system”, said the deputy.

Via social media, senator Jorge Seif (PL-RJ) said that the decision characterizes the implementation of a “state of exception”.

“Anyway, the dictatorship! State of exception successfully implemented! Next step: close the editorials and arrest journalists. Congratulations Supreme! Stoney clauses thrown in the trash. Any word from the press? From AMB? From PGR? From EB? Of course”, said the senator on the social network.

When talking to journalists, the leader of the Minority in Congress, senator Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ), said that the decision is absurd.

“We have been warning for a long time that this is not normal. So, they are applauding that they were persecuting Bolsonaro, one day they will persecute the press. It’s an absurd […] I think it is important for the mainstream media, even if belatedly, to take a stand against absurd decisions like this”, said the senator.

For senator Eduardo Girão (Novo-CE), the STF’s decision is authoritarian and will be used to silence the opposition.

“It’s an absurd decision. Because it will mean that the opposition will not be called to speak, because they will be scared. Because we speak the truth”, the senator told the website Power360.

Senator Rogério Marinho (PL-RN), leader of the opposition in the Senate, said that the decision is a “restriction on press freedom”.

“Holding a media outlet responsible simply because an individual expressed his or her opinions to the press is a measure that, in my opinion, very clearly restricts press freedom. This freedom is a fundamental pillar of our democracy and must be preserved at all costs,” the parliamentarian told Power360.

In a statement, the Novo party said that the decision is “an act of intimidation”, as well as “a form of white censorship” and represents “a significant threat to investigative journalism”.

STF approved the thesis against the press by 9 X 2

This Wednesday (29), the STF decided that newspapers may be held responsible for “proven insulting” statements made by interviewees against third parties.

The ministers defined the thesis when analyzing an action presented by former deputy Ricardo Zarattini Filho, who died in 2017, against the newspaper Diário de Pernambuco.

In 1995, the outlet published an interview with police chief Wandenkolk Wanderley, also now dead, who accused Zarattini of participating in the bomb attack at Guararapes Airport, in Recife, which caused the death of three people in 1966. The former’s defense The deputy pointed out that the accusation was not true and asked for compensation in court. The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) accepted the request, but the newspaper filed an appeal and the case began to be processed in the STF.

The case’s rapporteur at the time, then minister Marco Aurélio Mello, and retired minister Rosa Weber spoke out against the conviction of Diário de Pernambuco.

At the end of the trial, the other eight ministers followed the thesis of minister Alexandre de Moraes, who inherited the report on the case.

“I am convinced of the correctness of my decision. I think I came out well in the photograph with my democratic and republican decision. I have always paid great tribute to the work of you (journalists) and have always been against any embarrassment to the profession”, stated Marco Aurélio, this Thursday (30).

In his opinion as rapporteur of the case, the former minister said that “holding the press responsible is not the ideal way to combat the disclosure of interviews, even if what the interviewee said is inappropriate. The State becomes more democratic when it does not expose this type of work to official censorship, but, on the contrary, leaves it up to society to carry out the analysis, forming its own conclusions”.

The thesis established by the STF says that “in the event of publication of an interview in which the interviewee falsely imputes the commission of 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 of the falsehood of imputation; and (ii) the vehicle failed to observe the duty of care in verifying the veracity of the facts and disclosing the existence of such evidence”.