The (Supreme Federal Court) defined on Thursday (20) that press vehicles will only be held responsible for statements given by third parties if proven prior knowledge of the falseness of the statement.
As a general rule, the company will not be responsible for speech by interviewees.
According to the decision, in live interviews, the vehicle may not be held responsible if the interviewee falsely accuses someone to commit a crime. To avoid this, however, the vehicle must ensure the right of response in equal conditions, spaces and highlight.
The ministers even talked behind the scenes to achieve consensus on the definition of the case and reduce disagreements about the details of the thesis.
Thus, after the 11 ministers gathered, the president of the court, Luís Roberto Barroso, opened the session this afternoon with the reading of the text completed by the board. The trial therefore had a resolution in just over five minutes.
The first part of the text, made in three items, defines the question this way:
“In the event of an interview publication by any means in which the interviewee imputes falsely crime to third party, the journalistic company can only be liable civilly if its bad faith characterized
1) by the intention demonstrated due to the prior knowledge of the falseness of the declaration or
2) serious fault arising from the evident neglect in the truth of the truth and its disclosure to the public without response to the offended third party or at least in search of the contradictory by the vehicle. “
In addition to the stretch on live interviews, the third point says, finally, that when the declarations defined by the thesis is fallen, there must be removal of office, that is, by proactive decision of the court or by notification of the victim when the imputation remains available on digital platforms, under penalty of responsibility.
The rapporteur of the case, minister, led the rediscussion of the thesis and defended clearly under what conditions there may be liability and withdrawal of content with proven insulting, slanderous, defamatory or liars.
The trial would be resumed on Thursday with the minister’s vote, who had asked for more time to analyze the case. With the negotiation around the text, however, the minister stated that it would no longer be necessary to make use of the view time.
The matter had recognized general repercussion, and thus the decision will be applied to all similar cases in court.
Fachin proposed the change in the thesis initially approved by the board to remove the obligation to remove content with information proven to characterize injury, defamation, slander or lie.
The action had been decided by the Court in November 2023, with thesis prepared by the minister, with changes proposed by, and.
The original rapporteur was Minister Marco Aurélio Mello, who was overcome, along with Minister Rosa Weber. Both consider that if the journalistic company does not issue an opinion on the false prosecution, it should not be subject to compensation.
As the two today are retired and the discussion is now in an appeal, their substitutes participate in the trial.
The text says that “the full constitutional protection of press freedom is consecrated by the liberty binomial with responsibility, forbidden any kind of prior censorship, but admitting the later possibility of analysis and liability.”
With the presentation of resources, the theme returned to the debate in August 2024. The newspaper Diário de Pernambuco and Abraji (Brazilian Investigative Association), which is amicus curiae, asked for clarification on the decision in which the STF confirmed their conviction to pay compensation for disclosing false information.
The allegation presented in the resources is that the fixed wording has been subjective and can make room for the application of the thesis in a mistaken and unconstitutional manner, violating freedom of the press.
The discussion began after the Pernambuco Diary was sentenced in one (1935-2017). The former parliamentarian sued the newspaper for publishing in 1995 the false accusation of an interviewee, former delegate Wandenkolk Wanderley, that he had been the author of a bomb attack in 1966.
