STF denies appeal from writer who wrote fiction book criticizing SC judge

The ministers of the First Panel of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) denied an appeal against what would be a prior censorship against the writer and lawyer Saíle Bárbara Barreto, sentenced to pay a fine of R$50 thousand for publishing a fiction book allegedly against a judge of Santa Catarina.

Saíle is the author of the book “Causos da Comarca de São Barnabé”, published in 2021 and which supposedly portrays decisions that she disagrees with from the special civil judge Rafael Rabaldo Bottan. He filed a lawsuit in Santa Catarina court alleging moral damages.

Bottan argued that the name of the book’s main character, “Floribaldo Mussolini”, would be a pun on his name – which is not mentioned in the book –, and even the position described, of special civil judge at the Court of Justice of Santa Ignorância, also would be against him.

Saíle was forced by the courts to remove posts against court decisions made on her Facebook page, “Diary of a stressed lawyer”, under penalty of a daily fine of R$500 in case of non-compliance. Furthermore, she was banned from making new publications considered “defamatory, slanderous or outrageous” against the judge, with the risk of a similar fine.

Saíle’s defense appealed the decision, but the trial has not yet taken place. At the same time, lawyer Carla Rejane Freitas da Paixão filed a complaint with the STF, alleging that the author was a victim of prior censorship in the case – which was denied by the STF.

“It is impressive to see the effort that these figures are making to try to prevent the circulation of my creation. An idea, a work of fiction. […]I did a skit and the hood fit a lot of people”, said Saíle on social media. She states that she is prohibited from publishing excerpts from the book and promoting posts.

The rapporteur of the complaint, minister Alexandre de Moraes, denied the request, stating that Saíle did not face “any restrictions that would offend the protection of freedom of expression” by the courts.

According to him, who had the vote followed by Cármen Lúcia and Cristiano Zanin, “any abuses that may occur in the improper exercise of the expression of thought are subject to examination and appreciation by the Judiciary, with the cessation of the offenses, the right to reply and the establishment of consequent civil and criminal responsibilities of its authors.

However, the minister and president of the STF, Luís Roberto Barroso, disagreed with Moraes’ decision and recognized the existence of prior censorship in the case. He argued that, although the words addressed to the judge were sharp criticisms, “there was no imputation of crime or hate speech”. Barroso emphasized that content removal orders and bans on new publications with defamatory content tend to create an inhibiting environment for the free circulation of ideas.

Carla Rejane Freitas da Paixão alleges that Saíle is the victim of a “silencing process” that could set harmful precedents not only for the author, but for the entire population. She also mentions the amount of compensation determined in the first instance, which she considers significantly higher than decisions in similar cases.

The defense intends to take the case to the STF plenary and filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The author also faces criminal proceedings for slander, libel and defamation. According to the defense, Saíle had to change state and suffered considerable emotional and financial impacts.

The work questioned by the judge is the fifth book by the author, who began writing humorous texts about the legal environment in 2013, with good public acceptance and support for the case. “The book that put me in the dock and made me leave SC is still on sale, despite everything and everyone”, added Saíle.