Court of Appeal agrees with the first instance that there was no crime of defamation against businessman Marco Galinha, president of the BEL Group.
The story begins on April 26, 2022, when the defendant, an anonymous person, decides to share on the social network Twitter an opinion article by Left Bloc deputy Mariana Mortágua, in Jornal de Notícias, with the title
Galinha is the president of the BEL Group, at the time a leading shareholder and administrator of Global Notícias, owner of Jornal de Notícias. In addition to sharing the deputy’s text, the defendant also decided to leave a comment on her publication:
“The disgust of people like Marco Galinha and the ‘cheganos’ who genuflect respectfully at him and lick his boots like the lackeys they are.”
Marco Galinha didn’t like it and decided to advance to Court with a particular accusation by defamation crime. But in April this year, the Lisbon Local Criminal Court did not even agree to start the trial. Did you understand that the facts described in the accusation did not constitute a crime.
“The private accusation is consequently rejected (…) as manifestly unfounded.”
Chicken didn’t give up and appealed to the Lisbon Court of Appeal:
“The Court a quo could not fail to consider that the defendant’s indicted conduct is sufficiently serious to merit protection under criminal law. It is not a matter of mere rudeness, rudeness or bad manners on the part of the defendant. It is a defamatory expression that affects the dignity and good name of the assistant.”
This Thursday, the Court of Appeal came to put the end point in the process. In a ruling signed by judges Ana Paula Guedes and Eduardo de Sousa Paiva, it says:
“We are not unaware that the assistant felt uncomfortable with the expressions used. However, the same, objectively, do not constitute the practice of the crime of defamation. (…) according to the private accusation itself, the tweet was written in express support from the defendant to BE leader Mariana Mortágua, that is, within the scope of political-ideological intervention or discussion. Now, the defendant wrote the tweet in exercise of the right to freedom of expression and political opiniona.”.
The ruling, however, was defeated by one vote. Judge Joaquim Manuel da Silva thought that the defendant’s comment on Twitter was “degrading, humiliating and dehumanizing languageincompatible with personal dignity and rational speech protected by the Constitution (…)”.
“This is not, therefore, a literary metaphor or admissible political criticism, but a degrading and personal imputation, which clearly exceeds the limits of protected speech.” The judge was alone in this understanding.
