The case of journalist Breno Altman, paying compensation and removing posts about the conflict between and , reignites debate about the limits of , on the agenda at the STF (Supreme Federal Court) with a case of general repercussion.
Freedom of expression in Brazil has limits when it collides with other rights, but this border, experts say, runs into a gray area in some cases.
In Altman’s case, judge Paulo Bernardi Baccarat, from the 16th Civil Court of São Paulo, accepted the request to remove 5 of 20 posts made by Conib (Confederação Israelita do Brasil). In two of them, the journalist says, when talking about Hamas, that “it doesn’t matter what color cats are, as long as they hunt mice.”
The judge considered the reference racist, since the term “rat” was historically associated with Jews in a genocidal context.
In relation to the other three posts, the judge considered that there had been racism directed at Zionist Jews, “such as calling them petty-bourgeois rotten by racist doctrine, fearful, racist, etc.”
Altman’s defense denied racism and said he would appeal based on the right to freedom of expression. The journalist, who is Jewish, claims that his stance is against Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
The opportunity to develop parameters on freedom of expression involves the judgment in the STF of the case of a text published in 2007 by the PEA (Projeto Esperança Animal) regarding the Festa do Peão de Boiadeiro de Barretos, in São Paulo.
At the time, the entity criticized the party for the use of sedém —a belt used on animals to make them jump— and was ordered to remove the event from the list of celebrations that practiced animal cruelty and to pay compensation, among other measures.
The TJ-SP (São Paulo Court of Justice) interpreted that the organization abused its rights by associating the party with mistreatment without presenting evidence.
The execution of the decision, however, was suspended by the , which now, that is, will apply to other similar cases, on the “definition of the limits of freedom of expression in opposition to other rights of equal legal hierarchy”.
The rapporteur, Minister Luís Roberto Barroso, said that he will probably present his vote on the topic this semester. Then, the plenary must hold the discussion.
Although the case is quite different from Altman’s, it can help guide what needs to be protected by freedom of expression and, after that, what should be banned, says Raísa Cetra, executive director of Artigo 19, an NGO focused on freedom. of expression.
She states that there are still a lack of clearer parameters, even with the existence of important decisions on the subject in the Judiciary.
Among them is the one that resulted in the overturning, in 2009, of the Press Law, a set of rules created during the period that provided for censorship.
Over time, decisions related to this action have not been consistent with each other, says Cetra.
For her, the protection of freedom of expression needs to be made clearer, especially when linked to public speech and the promotion of democratic debate. Only from this more solid basis will there be confidence to discuss the necessary restrictions, he says.
Hate speech and attacks on democracy are examples of limits, as they themselves can endanger freedom of expression. Still, they need to be analyzed in their concreteness, says the expert.
In the case of the Festa do Peão, Article 19 assesses that there is a violation of freedom of expression and public interest.
Altman’s conviction would illustrate a “classic case”, for her: “a journalist being prosecuted for broadcasting a topic of public interest, protecting a population that is suffering a patent violation of rights in a systematic way by a State”.
According to Pierpaolo Cruz Bottini, lawyer and professor at the Faculty of Law, Altman’s case exemplifies “this tenuous division between freedom of expression and insult to honor or incitement to hatred”.
He recalls that, in Brazil, freedom of expression can conflict with crimes already provided for by law.
“This zone of legal uncertainty will always exist in these extreme cases. It is the blind spot of the legal system, which is when two principles face each other and, in the specific case, the judge will have to decide. But there are few of them. In general, it is very clear to identify whether or not there was a violation of the limits of freedom of expression”, says Bottini.
According to him, some limits in Brazilian legislation are racism, bullying, crimes against honor and intentional lies with the aim of harming someone.
Álvaro Jorge, a professor at FGV Rio specializing in topics related to the STF and fundamental rights, states that the Supreme Court has tried to “systematize a little better” the categories that limit freedom of expression.
Still, specific cases can pose challenges when it comes to separating legitimate opinions from crimes. “No matter how much the Supreme Court establishes some parameters for protected speech, this test will always happen given your circumstances”, he says.
