Action filed by the producer under the justification of combating misinformation exposed the expansion of the scope of action of the agency in the government (PT).
The process deals with an episode of the “Parallel Research” series about the case of, symbol of the fight against the domestic.
The material, currently out of air, was suspended by the 9th Criminal Court of Fortaleza, Ceará, at the request of MP-CE (from the state of Ceará). The measure was requested during the second phase of the operation “Echo Chamber”, which investigates cyber attacks coordinated to the Maria da Penha Law.
AGU’s action, in turn, did not ask for the withdrawal of the documentary, but the dismissal of a note of clarification by denying what he called “misinformation statements” and a payment of $ 500,000 for collective moral damages.
In the episode, the conservative producer, which brings what they claim to be errors and omissions in the investigation of the committed against. Ceará’s pharmacist was paraplegic after being shot by his ex-husband while sleeping in 1983.
The defense, led by, states that the AGU incurs serious error by not proving if it had access to the full video of the episode, given that it would only be available on the subscriber platform.
The court denied an injunction in the case of AGU, on the grounds that only isolated excerpts from the documentary were presented.
The agency’s initial request includes facts check results that classified production as “fake”. The AGU also disputes what the producer claims to be errors in the investigation and the statement that Heredia was convicted “in a snap of fingers.”
The processing of the lawsuit against Maria da Penha’s ex-husband extended for over 19 years. He was only arrested in 2002, which led AA to talk about negligence and delay from the Brazilian state to investigate cases of.
In July, a public agency report revealed that a forensic police expertise from Ceará came to the conclusion that one of the reports presented in the episode to discredit Maria da Penha. The producer did not speak at the time and, sought, also did not comment until the conclusion of this text about the action of AGU.
Divergences on AGU’s performance
AGU’s action against the producer was filed by, created in 2023 with the justification of acting in cases involving disinformation on federal public policies – and under criticism of the opposition, for whom it is an apparatus of the Lula administration to promote patrolling and censorship.
At the time, the AGU said that “under no hypothesis” would surround opinions or criticism.
The national prosecutor of the Union responsible for the division and a doctor of political science from UnB (University of Brasilia), Raphael Ramos Monteiro de Souza, says that the agency does not go with actions spontaneously, but always through provocation of others or representation of interested parties.
In the case of Maria da Penha, the measure was taken at the request of the Ministry of Women.
For the prosecutor, the disinformation about the case delegitimates state actions to combat domestic violence, in view of the “intrinsic correlation” between the specific case and the public policies created after the IACHR recommendations.
“The misinformation content not only discredits the report of the victim and the performance of accountability of the Brazilian justice system but can promote hate speeches,” he says.
Specialists heard by Sheet They differ in the performance of AGU and the thesis defended by the agency.
Professor of the State Law of USP and former Attorney General of the State of São Paulo, Elival da Silva Ramos, says no need for judicialization.
“Deep down, it will function as a court of truth. What is true was decided in the other action [que condenou o agressor]”, it says.
In his view, he does not argue that the pointing of errors in the specific case of Maria da Penha would demoralize the application of the law that bears his name.
“An error in the specific case does not dismembered a set of policies that have hundreds or thousands of assaulted women, public policy does not depend on a case,” he says. “It has a lot more smell of a stage than to really want to maintain a policy.”
The lawyer, professor at FGV Law Rio and, states that “the thesis of AGU may not be self -evident,” but makes analogy with other historical events.
“It is discussed internationally whether the denial of the Holocaust is in itself anti -Semitic. What has been concluded today is that the attempt to revisit history in a fraudulent way, to dispel the bases of human rights discourse, is a long -term attempt to deconstruct broader public policies,” he says.
In his assessment, the AGU request agrees not to include the removal of the videos, ensuring, for him, the circulation of full information without incurring censorship.
“The idea that video clarification is made is a way of thinking about regulating freedom of expression not as a removal of circulation of unwanted ideas, but of putting information with disinformation as a way of giving people the possibility of accessing what is considered the most appropriate information,” he says.
a lawyer and professor at the USP State Department of Law, argues that there is room for the Union to resort to the judiciary in defending its interests in cases like this.
“It is a defamation campaign against a public policy that tries to realize women’s rights to the safety of life and human dignity. It is not critical what Brazil parallel does.”
HAS Sheet The Maria da Penha Institute, founded in 2009, said that “disinformation contents on the subject denature the very social function of communication”.
