STF thesis on interviews affects humor text action – 12/18/2023 – Power

The thesis established by the STF (Supreme Federal Court) that press organizations can be punished for the speeches of interviewees could affect broader actions related to freedom of expression, the actions of media outlets and even publications on social networks.

The understanding can be used to decide, for example, on lawsuits against a humor column that mentioned the lineup of a supposed team called “100 Muié Futebol Clube” and also against a text critical of an advertisement that defended an unproven treatment for Covid -19.

It could also serve to define actions regarding the maintenance of derogatory comments about a former mayor on a Facebook page and about a TV that recorded and interviewed a drunk man.

In the Supreme Court alone, there are 33 cases that were awaiting the thesis of general repercussion, which affects similar cases, established by the court’s plenary in November. In addition to these, another 64 that are being processed in other courts in the country were awaiting the STF’s decision, according to the CNJ (National Council of Justice).

The thesis approved by the Supreme Court says that “full constitutional protection for freedom of the press is enshrined in the binomial freedom with responsibility, prohibiting any type of prior censorship, but admitting the possibility of subsequent analysis and accountability.”

This liability, which may include removal of content, would be for “information proven to be insulting, defamatory, slanderous, lying, and in relation to possible material and moral damages”.

“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 may 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 thesis.

A Sheet Minister Alexandre de Moraes said that the term “concrete evidence of the falseness of the imputation” should be replaced with “intent” on the part of the journalist or media outlet, so that there is no problem with interpretation.

Asked about the validity of the judgment for cases that are not related to interviews, the STF said in a note that “it is necessary to wait for the publication of the ruling [decisão completa do colegiado de ministros] and judgment of possible embargoes for clarification”.

The humor column that is the target of actions was published in 2017 by the newspaper Super Notícia, called “Bola Murcha”, mentioned the lineup of a supposed team from Lamim, a city of 3,500 inhabitants in the interior of Minas Gerais, which would be “100 Muié Soccer club”.

The text only listed funny nicknames of potential players on that team, without mentioning real names.

Some residents of the city, however, felt affected and went to court to ask for retraction and compensation for moral damages.

Three appeals from these cases reached the Supreme Court. The defense of one of the men who felt affected by the column said that one of the nicknames referred to him, who was joked in the city by the term “100 Muié”.

“[O homem]by choice, never got married, which simply expresses a free and conscious will that in no way interferes with the lives of other people who came to have access to the newspaper”, said his defense.

Super Notícia’s defense pointed out that it was “impossible to prove his connection with any of the names” and that “not even he was able to identify which name would be linked to his”.

Therefore, he argued, there was no damage to the image of the man who entered Justice.

When contacted by the report, Semper Editora, responsible for Super Notícia, said that it is following the processes and that one of the actions against the publisher was “closed with the fulfillment of the compensation obligation” and the others are under appeal and awaiting judgment.

“It is worth highlighting that the Bola Murcha column, published at the time, had a humorous nature and the publication that gave rise to the proceedings, suggested by a reader of the newspaper Super Notícia, did not present any violation of personality rights and did not mention the imputation of a crime, constituting of the constitutional right to freedom of expression and press rights”, said the company, in a statement.

Another case that reached the STF was presented by the Associação Médicos Pela Vida against the website B9, which produces content about the advertising market.

In 2021, B9 published a text about an advertising piece by the association that was published in Sheet and in the newspaper O Globo.

The advertising defended the so-called “early treatment” — with no proven efficacy — against Covid-19. The title of the B9 text was “Denial ‘advertising report’ in the newspapers O Globo and Sheet attests to division between editorial and commercial”.

The association asked for a right of response from the company under penalty of a fine of R$50,000.

The request was denied in the first and second instances. The ruling that denied the request said that the B9 text was an opinionated journalistic report that presented arguments that cited bodies such as the World Health Organization and the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases.

When contacted to comment on the process at the STF, B9 did not comment.

Another action concerns a former mayor of São Manuel (SP), who sued a blogger who posted a comment on Facebook that called him a “human beast”.

The TJ-SP (SP Court of Justice) ordered the people who made the comments to pay R$5,000 in compensation for moral damages. The convicts appealed and claimed that the case is related to freedom of expression, which is why it should be decided by the Supreme Court.

Among the other cases that will also have an impact on the Supreme Court’s thesis are the case of a man who was interviewed in a joking manner while he was drunk and reports of arrests in the act that exposed the prisoners.

The case that gave rise to the STF’s thesis, however, was a request for compensation against the newspaper Diário de Pernambuco for an interview published in 1995. The Supreme Court upheld by 9 votes to 2 a conviction by the STJ (Superior Court and Justice) against the vehicle.

The process dealt with the dispute between former deputy Ricardo Zarattini Filho, who has since died, against Diário de Pernambuco.

The former parliamentarian went to court against the newspaper due to an interview in which delegate Wandenkolk Wanderley, also now deceased, said that Zarattini had participated in the bomb attack at Guararapes Airport, in Recife, in 1966.

Zarattini’s defense maintained that the information is not true, that he was not indicted or accused for his practice and that he was not given space to exercise his right to reply.