The Court of Justice of the Federal District ordered X (former) to delete a publication by the federal deputy (PL-MG) in which he called the “Traffickers’ Party”. The decision may be appealed.
The social network must delete the post within 48 hours after being notified by the Court. If it fails to comply, the platform will be “under civil liability for damages resulting from the aforementioned publication”. UOL contacted the deputy’s team and is awaiting a response. The report also tries to locate representatives of X in Brazil.
The judge stated that parliamentary immunity applies to speeches made within the Chamber of Deputies. “Assertions made in environments outside that legislative house, including virtual ones, are only immune when strictly linked to the exercise of the mandate”, said magistrate Wagner Pessoa Vieira.
For the judge, the statements constitute moral damage. “The publication of false or inauthentic information, imputing the appellants to support a terrorist group, constitutes moral damage, as it directly affects their honor and image. The severity of the damage is accentuated by the fact that the appellees are public figures with wide media reach.”
The decision comes after the PT filed five lawsuits against Bolsonaro supporters for calling the acronym the “Traffickers Party”. The party asked for compensation of R$30,000 for each parliamentarian — in addition to Nikolas, the party sued deputies Bia Kicis (PL-DF), Carlos Jordy (PL-RJ) and Gustavo Gayer (PL-GO), as well as senator Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ).
The contents were published after the most lethal police operation in Brazil. For the PT, the publications are an example of the “dishonest and abusive use of parliamentary immunity and freedom of expression”. The party also states that the purpose of the posts was “to manipulate public understanding to lie that the Workers’ Party is a supporter, linked, associated or in some way a defender of drug traffickers.”
The president’s party speaks of “accountability” and denies attempts at censorship. “Intervention from the Judiciary is expected to be able to remove from the public debate the contentless speech, without any idea, proposal or well-founded criticism, which only serves to tarnish the honor of others, inducing political hatred in the population”, states the action filed by the party.
“The conduct exceeded the limits of parliamentary immunity, characterizing an abuse of freedom of expression and a violation of the appellants’ personality rights.”
“The post made by the defendant, on a digital communication platform on a social network, is not related to parliamentary activity, as it constitutes a mere personal opinion, with no supervisory nature or informative intention and, therefore, devoid of protection by parliamentary immunity.”
