Although Minister Alexandre Moraes of (Supreme Federal Court) has said that () is not forbidden to give interviews, in practice, maintain a very uncertain scenario of the boundaries of what the former president can speak without being read as a scam to the restrictions imposed by the magistrate.
Experts consulted by Sheet They see the new demonstration of Moraes, issued on Thursday (24), as little clear and consider that it still leaves important gaps, which can excessively restrict Bolsonaro’s freedom of manifestation.
Afterwards, one of the main questions remains: from the precautionary measure – which would justify his pre -trial detention.
In Thursday’s decision, Moraes states, for example, that the slot would be configured when there is an unlawful content in “patent coordination”, as well as citing expressions without a legal definition, such as acting through “digital militias” and “instrumentalization of public interviews or discourses such as ‘prefabricated material'”.
Citing a post by Eduardo Bolsonaro (PL-SP), in which the licensed deputy reverberated the episode of the beginning of the week when the former president showed his anklet to journalists in the House of Representatives and spoke of “supreme humiliation,” Moraes said there was breach of the precautions by Bolsonaro. He said, however, that he would not determine the arrest because it was an isolated irregularity.
Bolsonaro has been from the 18th, directly or through third parties. “Three days after that order – confirmed by the first class of the STF – Moraes said in a new order,” in any of the third party social networking platforms. “
From the general reading of the decision, the interpretation pointed out as the most likely by most experts is that any new Bolsonaro speeches that are understood by the Court as reiteration of the pressure against the cut of the United States may be understood as a defaulting.
The lawyer Vinícius Assumpção, who is a doctor of law from UnB (University of Brasilia) and director of IBCCRIM (Brazilian Institute of Criminal Sciences), sees with concern the doubts about the order.
“A decision that is laconic about what it prohibits is extremely sensitive, delicate, problematic,” he says. “This generates serious damage to the person investigated in any process.”
Despite the lack of clarity, he interprets that the former president would be at risk of arrest from the publication by third parties of his speech that may be understood, for example, as a coercion to ministers or to be aware of sovereignty and without requiring explicit coordination evidence between people.
In the event that, although the decision does not explicit, he evaluates that Bolsonaro would not be held responsible, but that one cannot rule out a situation in which those who are replicating this content becomes the target of investigation.
For Paulo José Lara, director of Article 19, an NGO that promotes freedom of expression, although the new decision has advanced in relation to the previous one, there are gaps.
“It remains nebulous what the minister circumscribes when mentioning ‘digital militias’ and previously coordinated political supporters for the dissemination of illicit conduct,” says Lara, who also sees the use of the expression “illicit instrumentalization” as a generator of uncertainty, given how communications occur in the digital environment.
From the point of view of the content, he states that the main doubt concerns what type of manifestation will be considered interference in the investigation.
Also the lawyer and professor of criminal law at FGV Raquel Scalcon characterizes the limits of the decision as poorly clear, leaving room for later interpretation of what violates or not.
“I think what is not clear is if, as he [Bolsonaro] puts itself as a source of content production, which will predictably be posted by someone, he [também] It will be violating the determination, “she says.
She understands that one of the parameters that is extracted from the decision is that this speech would be considered only as a bump to the precautionary when the content is considered within the list of crimes under investigation, as coercion in the process.
According to the criminalist lawyer and vice-president of IASP (Institute of Lawyers of São Paulo), Marina Coelho Araújo, the former president cannot be hampered by the freedom to say that he feels wronged, that he would not have committed the crimes of which he is accused and even that the court would be abusing his power, either could be held responsible for posts without proofs.
She says the decision is still dubious. “It is unclear what he [Moraes] effectively considers it unlawful, because [Bolsonaro] It may give interview, but it conditions this interview to questions that are super random, “she says.
In the assessment of Rodrigo Chemim, professor of criminal procedure at Positivo University, the new decision does not accurately clarify the reach of the imposed precautionary measure.
“[A decisão] It maintains an interpretative ambiguity that, while claiming there is no prohibition on the granting of interviews or discourses, ends up conditioning its legitimacy to a later judgment on possible developments in social networks, “he says. For Chemin, the practical result of this scenario is a” widespread inhibitory effect. “
