By Lise Alves, Senior Contributing Reporter

SÃO PAULO, BRAZIL – A decision by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes to order the removal of stories mentioning Brazil’s Chief Justice from two online news sites has received condemnation from both public officials and private entities.

Brazil,Supreme Court Justice, Alexandre de Moraes, was strongly criticized for censuring two news outlets and ordering them to take down story
Supreme Court Justice, Alexandre de Moraes, was strongly criticized for censuring two news outlets and ordering them to take down story, photo by Fabio Pozzebom/Agencia Brasil.

“Sad times when those who have the constitutional responsibility to defend freedom of expression are charged with censuring and imprisoning it,” Senator Randolfe Rodriguez is quoted as saying by O Antagonista, one of the publications censored.

Justice Moraes is said to have disliked the article “O amigo do amigo de meu pai” (A friend of a friend of my father’s), in which construction mogul Marcelo Odebrecht linked then attorney general, now Chief Justice of the Brazilian Supreme Court Jose Antonio Dias Toffoli to his father, Emilio Odebrecht.

According to online news site Crusoé, which ran the original story, the elder Odebrecht was friends with ex-president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who in turn was a friend of Dias Toffoli, whom he nominated as his attorney general.

Marcelo Odebrecht, jailed in the mega corruption scandal Operação Lava Jato (Operation Car Wash), agreed to talk to prosecutors in exchange for a reduction of his sentence.

Chief Justice Dias Toffoli discarded the story as “fake news” last week, stating that there was nothing in the documents that proved any illicit doings on his part.

Justice Alexandre de Moraes, however, went further and ordered the removal of the journalistic piece (and related posts) from the internet on Monday, under penalty of a daily fine of R$ 100.000 ($ 25,000 USD).

On Tuesday morning, the Justice authorized search and seizure warrants and determined the freeze of social media accounts of at least seven people involved.

“I also determine the blocking of accounts in social networks, such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, and Instagram, of those investigated,” said the order issued by Moraes.

Crusoé claimed on Tuesday that even after removing the piece from their website, the news outlet was still fined R$100,000 by the STF.

The National Association of Newspapers (ANJ) and the National Association of Newspaper Editors (ANER), protested in a joint statement.

“The decision clearly constitutes censorship, prohibited by the Constitution, whose principles should be safeguarded exactly by the STF,” it said.

Both associations noted that Brazilian law provides for moral damage lawsuits and the right of response for those who consider themselves unjustly described or accused by the media.

Brazil,Crusoe magazine article was censured by Supreme Court Justice in Brazil
Crusoe magazine article was censured by Supreme Court Justice in Brazil, photo internet reproduction.

The Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism (Abraji) also condemned the decision, claiming it was an attack to freedom of the press.

Even Congressional representative Eduardo Bolsonaro agreed. “The best person to say what fake news is or isn’t is the consumer. This is freedom. The attitude of censoring Crusoé only contributes to reducing the already low index of credibility STF has with society. Those who walk the streets know,” Jair Bolsonaro’s son tweeted.

President Bolsonaro also took to social media and although he did not specifically mention the STF-Crusoé case, he reiterated his support for freedom of expression.

“I believe in Brazil and its institutions and respect for the autonomy of the powers, as written in our Constitution, which are indispensable principles for a democracy. That said, my position will always be favorable to freedom of expression, a legitimate and inviolable right,” he tweeted on Tuesday afternoon.

3 COMMENTS

  1. I wonder if you would be blocked for repeating what Bolsonaro said that may offend some people? Last I heard, he said holocausts can be forgiven and that those who carry them out will always be remembered (not forgotten). I guess he is giving carte blanche to his paramilitaries to do whatever it takes, including a holocaust, to carry out his vision. I don’t live in Brazil, but have in the past, and feel for everyone living through this nightmare.

  2. The STF is clearly plunging towards an institutional breakdown. The reason is quite simple. It only rarely acts like a court, in the sense of a collective body. Rather, it is a collection of 11 judges, most of whom disagree with eath other on most issues and do not consider themselves bound by precedent or anything other than their own personal philosophy.
    In the US, and in the vast majority of Supreme Courts worldwide, individual Justices do NOT have the right to issue orders–only the court itself can do that, and only in the context of a decision.
    The 1988 Constitution does grant individual STF justices the right to issue individual orders and take decisions: even though individual decisions are subject to review by one of the STF 5-justice panels, the damage is done.

  3. Let there be seen that what was prepared already had a purpose which is being put into practice. Assuming that some lawyers were appointed judges like this Jose Dias Toffoli named by his great friend ex-president Lula without any relation with position of so great responsibility which is suggested as a creditor of the sovereignty of Brazil. Very typical of the parties of the left that hope that the government of President Jair Bolsonaro does not work. At the moment there is a generalized mess by the parties that twist against the development of Brazil through the deputy Maria do Rosário and Gleisi Roffmam this, the party president which the minister of the STF Dias Toffoli belongs without fear of exposing his partisanship.
    That is why the leftist constituents gave this concession to the STF judges in Brazil. Right to issue individual orders and make decisions passing over to Attorney General’s Office. They arrest a comedian, a senator who speaks something and censors sources of journalism that show the truth on account of Odebrecht accusations. At the moment he had several social networks blocked.
    The damage is put into practice.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

5 − 3 =