The offensive of children and allies of () on social networks may aggravate if they are interpreted as part of a collusion and may pose an extra risk to approach the closed regime, experts say.
The minister, of the (Supreme Federal Court), decreed on Monday (4) that of the former president under the understanding that he broke the prohibition of use of social networks, directly or through third parties.
Suspected of acting to disrupt the progress of the lawsuit in which he is a defendant for attempted coup d’état, (3) and had a message released on the allied platforms.
In addition to house arrest, the former president is prohibited from receiving visits, except from lawyers and people previously authorized by the Supreme Court. He cannot use cell phone, directly or through other people.
The analysis of experts is that the maintenance of family and allies onslaught can substantiate a pre -trial detention, depending on publication. There are disagreements, however, about how Moraes’s decisions can be interpreted.
“The decisions of this process, whatever to go from now on, will raise interpretative doubts,” says Marcelo Crespo, Coordinator of ESPM Law Course. “The difficulty of the law is that you find consistency, reasonableness.”
According to the teacher, “when you are not browsing seas that have already been sailed and that we already have the case law, it is harder to understand why the behaviors are taken.”
If an articulated maneuver is characterized to try to circumvent the prohibition of using mobile and social networks, a Carlos, Eduardo publication or could be used as a basis for a pre -trial detention decree, says Crespo.
“Usually a person who is without a cell phone could not be held responsible for a third party publication, but (…) if this behavior was adjusted so that someone else [em nome dela] Somehow organized, this could happen. “
In Monday’s decision, Moraes presents publications of the former president’s children. Among them is one from Flavio in thanks to the sanctions imposed on the minister and another of Carlos with a call for his followers to follow his father’s networks.
Moraes’ previous decisions left, in practice, ambiguities and generic terms that maintained an uncertain scenario on the limits imposed on the former president, also related to third party publications.
Lawyer and professor Ivan Zonta states that, considering the tendency to interpret third party actions such as non-compliance attributable to Bolsonaro, it would be not surprising that new allies’ conduct hurt the former president.
If there is already a sign that Moraes would blame Bolsonaro because he understands that acts fall as a collusion, he says, “nothing prevents the minister or court, in a collegiate manner, to consider third parties as instances of non -compliance.”
In the decision, the magistrate stated: “As I have repeatedly stated, justice is blind, but it is not foolish. Justice will not allow a defendant to make it foolish, thinking it will be unpunished.”
Thiago Bottino, professor at FGV Law Rio, adopts another perspective. For him, the prohibition of use of social networks is focused on Bolsonaro, directly or indirectly.
Any indirect use could be characterized, in your assessment, if he uses a third party to do something. This would not happen in case of demonstrations of third parties in solidarity or in favor of the former president.
“You want to open an account in X [ex-Twitter] And freely manifesting will not impact the former president’s situation, “says Bottino. He applies the same interpretation, in principle, to publications of allies and children, but there would be a risk of another order.
“The risk there would be, for example, a child to visit him and say, ‘I’ve been with my father now, and he said that and said that.’ That can’t,” says the teacher. “This would be Bolsonaro using third people to intermediate communication.”
