RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – In a hearing started yesterday morning, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) surpassed the six-vote majority needed to approve continuing the fake news inquiry investigating the spread of false news and threats to members of the Court. To date, no Justice has voted against the inquiry.
The case was resumed with the votes of Justices Alexandre de Moraes, rapporteur of the inquiry in the Supreme Court, Luís Roberto Barroso, Rosa Weber, Luiz Fux, Cármen Lúcia, Ricardo Lewandowski and Gilmar Mendes, who confirmed the investigation should be continued. Justice Edson Fachin had already voted last week.
Moraes said that the law allows the STF to open criminal investigations and that the Prosecutor’s Office (MP) has no exclusivity on pre-procedural investigations, that is before a formal complaint is filed with the Court
“There is no such monopoly of investigations by the judicial police and there is no such monopoly of investigations, of deciding to open an investigation by the Prosecutor’s Office. Because the entitlement to criminal prosecution is unmistakably linked to the investigative process,” Moraes said.
In arguing for the inquiry’s legitimacy, Moraes said the investigations under the STF’s command are not reflected in criticism of the justices, but in threats of violent actions against the Court’s members.
According to Moraes, the investigation found a plan to attack one of the Justices, which included flight schedules and the magistrate’s daily routine. The investigation also found a second attack plan that included a blueprint of the STF.
During the session, Moraes mentioned some of the messages that became subject to the inquiry, such as the posts by an attorney from Rio Grande do Sul mentioning the rape of the STF justices’ daughters and another that referred to “shooting” the Court members “at close range”. “Freedom of expression should not be confused with threats, with attacks,” said the Justice.
In his vote, Barroso said that freedom of expression does not tolerate attacks and threats to public officials and institutions. “Militancy, of any cause that is not based on hatred, is legitimate. But causes founded on hatred, that is pure banditry, and one must react to it. Armed groups that make threats are not militants,” Barroso said.
Yesterday’s session has not yet closed and the three other STF Justices are expected to vote on the case today.
The STF’s examination of the case began last Wednesday, June 10th, when only Justice Fachin voted, also in favor of further investigations.
Fachin, the rapporteur of the case challenging the inquiry, advocated enforcing rules on the investigation, such as its monitoring by the Prosecutor’s Office (MP), access to the inquiry by the defense counsel of those under investigation, and the exclusion of media reports and individual demonstrations on the Internet.
Moraes, Barroso, and Rosa Weber also advocated access to the investigation by the prosecution and defense attorneys.
The fake news investigation has upset President Jair Bolsonaro by targeting politicians, entrepreneurs, and bloggers supporting him, who are now under investigation for suspected links to a network for spreading fake news and threats against Supreme Court justices.
Understanding the trial
The STF is considering the legitimacy of the inquiry opened in March last year by the Presiding Justice, Dias Toffoli, after the Court became the target of criticism on social media.
From the outset, the investigation was criticized in the legal world for having been opened without the involvement of the Prosecutor’s Office, the body in charge of criminal proceedings in Brazilian justice.
In 2019, the then Federal Prosecutor General, Raquel Dodge, expressed her objection to the inquiry. But Dodge’s successor, Augusto Aras, changed the Prosecutor General’s position and began to argue for the legality of the investigation.
The lawsuit challenging the legality of the investigation was filed by the Rede Sustentabilidade political party, arguing that the STF should not accumulate the roles of accuser, prosecutor and judge.
Source: UOL