The minister’s orders, the (Supreme Court), determining that the former president () does not comment on social networks generate a debate about to what extent they constitute or not censorship.
Experts consulted by Sheet They have different understanding of the case. There are those who see orders as prior censorship and others who understand that it was a justified limitation and avoid using the term to characterize the order issued by the minister.
The only point in common among all respondents is that a.
Part of this confusion is inserted in a context in which the minister has been applying precautionary measures that are not provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby there are no established criteria on this use.
On Friday (18), Moraes determined several alternative precautionary measures to arrest against Bolsonaro-as use of and prohibition of use “social networks, directly or through third parties”-with the government of Donald Trump in defense of sanctions to Brazilian authorities. These measures were confirmed by 4 votes to 1 by the first class of the STF.
Already on Monday (21), Moraes stated, in a new order, that such restriction included transmissions, or relay of interviews “on any of the third party social networks platforms”.
After speaking to journalists at, displaying the anklet to photographers and saying that the device was a “symbol of maximum humiliation”-episodium that was released by the press, and-Moraes summoned the former president’s defense to clarify the breach of the precautionary.
On Tuesday (22), Bolsonaro’s defense stated in the process that he and asked Moraes to clarify whether the former president can grant interviews. The minister has not yet spoken.
Rodrigo Chemin, professor of criminal procedure at Positivo University, understands that both the decision of Moraes who limited the use of social networks by Bolsonaro and the following order, dealing with publications made by third parties, consist of censorship. “Censorship is when you, in advance, prevents the person from publicly manifesting, not knowing what he will say,” he says.
For Chemin, it would be responsible for restricting criminal practice and, in case of reiteration, determining pre -trial detention, but not prohibiting the use of the social network as a whole – logic that it applies the suspension of profiles. “You cannot ban people from expressing themselves in advance from the assumption that their social network manifestation will necessarily be a reiteration of criminal behavior,” he says.
“If the Supreme Minister decides to invent a precautionary measure that the law does not provide for, the first judge will end up inventing his and we have no idea whatever it is,” says the teacher, who points out as necessary that the court makes a self -criticism as to how to legitimize the use of precautions that are not provided for in the legislation.
The FGV Law professor, on the other hand, has a distinct view. Although it also sees problems of lack of clarity, it is not necessary to speak of censorship in these decisions.
Regarding Bolsonaro, he states that the restriction was made to prevent him from continuing to commit the conduct under investigation.
“There is a previous control, but to say that it is prior censorship, it gives a category to say that it would be arbitrary, unconstitutional or illegal. I think it is a lawful restriction,” he says.
As for third parties, at first, he interprets that, as the precautionary applies only to Bolsonaro, it should not be punished to third parties and that therefore it would not be able to speak of censorship to people in general.
“It would be prior censorship if I had something like, ‘Any third party that transcribes will be subject to investigation and punishment.’ Then it would be a problem of prior censorship. But strictly speaking, [a ordem de Moraes] It does not generate any repercussions for these third parties. “
In addition, he estimates that Bolsonaro cannot be held responsible for what third parties publish, except in situations that in which he was established that he was to some extent coordinating this.
For Paulo José Lara, director of Article 19, an NGO that promotes freedom of expression, it is not possible to state whether or not the order of Moraes configures or not censorship.
He says this impossibility is due to the very ambiguities of the decision and how it applies to third parties or not. As for the restriction on the use of social network by Bolsonaro, he does not understand that censorship has been characterized and argues that there are restrictions on the right of manifestation that may be legitimate.
In a statement, the organization says it is concerned with the recent decisions of Moraes towards the prohibition of “use of social networks, directly or through third parties”.
According to the entity, the decision on Monday “is vague and generates doubts about its reach” and “regardless of the way it is interpreted, this inaccuracy is sufficient to generate the so-called Chilling Effect-an inhibitor effect that leads to self-censorship.”
Also the professor in Constitutional Law at (University of São Paulo) Rubens Beçak sees both the decision that limits the use of social networks by Bolsonaro and the second order of the minister as censorship.
Beçak sees as more severe but the order that sought to the thesis to clarify the first, because it is very wide and general, implying that it is even limiting the manifestation of third parties without relation to the process.
“Even though people are not influx of the process, they are attached to respect that limitation. It ends up causing what I call self -censorship,” he ponders.
For the teacher, if the intention would specifically limit the former president and third parties who can post content on his behalf, the order “had to be more detailed, more specific.”
