A de denied on Tuesday (20) a claim for compensation for moral damages by José Luiz against (), because the influencer suggested, when both were candidates for the city hall, that the journalist would be a rapist. It is appealed to the decision.
Datena filed a lawsuit after Marçal called him “Jack” (to define prisoners for sexual crimes) in the debate between Na in September last year. The episode took the in Marçal.
At the time, the influencer claimed that Datena was answered for, questioning whether the presenter would have leaning against the alleged victim.
“There is someone here who is Jack, and is here taking wave, supporting censorship, but is someone who responds for sexual harassment, and that person is the ‘gives pity’, [em referência a José Luiz Datena]. I wanted you to ask for forgiveness for the process that runs, “said Marçal, who then took a journalist’s chair due to the accusations.
The decision of Judge Alexander Roisin of the 14th Civil Court of São Paulo states that Marçal did not accused Datena of harassment, and that the influencer only brought the fact to the debate.
“Although full of irony, the period does not claim that the author is rapist, especially because the direct issue is harassment and the general public does not know the difference in harassment, rape, violent attack, sexual possession through fraud, obscene act, etc. In common sense, everything is rape,” Roisin argued.
Datena asked for $ 100,000 in compensation for the influential affirmation, and argued that the statements of the PRTB candidate were a personal attack.
Already Marçal stated that his speech is part of the context of freedom of expression in the political sphere. In addition, he said it was information of collective interest, and the questioning would be relevant in an electoral context.
The case quoted by Marçal was. The complainant was the journalist and former reporter of, Bruna Drews, who stated in interviews at the time.
According to Drews, the then PSDB candidate said it would be “a waste” the professional dating a woman, “a fact to which the presenter allegedly attributed to her” not having known the right man. “
Judge Alexander Roisin also understood that the question about harassment directed to Datena had no offensive capacity in the electoral context.
“The question about touching third party puddings has no offensive capacity. The question without statements contained in it is not able to generate any damage. In short, not denying the existence of the accusation, there is no invertent capable of leading to the origin of the request.”
the defenses of both Datena and Marçal had difficulties locating both parties in order to notify the process and progress the actions on the chair in the debate.
The case of the indemnity action, now denied, walked from October until March because the bailiffs could not find the influencer at the addresses indicated by Datena’s defense in the early attempts.
On the other hand, Marçal also sued the presenter, demanding the same $ 100,000 of compensation, but for the chair itself.
In the case of the demand filed by Marçal, letters and warrants were issued, but Datena was not found either. In the last attempt, specifically, it was pointed out that the address number does not exist. In another, that the presenter had changed.
The address of those who are the subject of the process, individual, is always provided by the plaintiff. Quotations can be sent by letter, via post office, or fulfilled by a bailiff through warrants.
