The Inter-American Commission’s report on freedom of expression in Brazil, released this Friday (26), warns of the danger of using concepts such as “informational disorder”, “decontextualized information” and “anti-democratic acts” to restrict speeches that are merely critical of the authorities, but it goes far from condemning an alleged censorship of the right, as Bolsonarists pressured, and calls for punishment of those responsible for the coup attempt.
In the government’s view, the report did not buy the idea that there is a restriction on freedom of expression in Brazil, disseminated by Bolsonarists in the USA, and will not be used as a justification for sanctions against Brazilian authorities.
But Bolsonarists like the senator (PL-RJ) celebrated the report’s content, saying that it “only confirmed what we already knew and suffered for years.”
“My interpretation of the report: ‘hate speech’ and ‘disinformation’ are used to pursue pre-determined targets and democracy in Brazil is relative. And there is no longer parliamentary immunity for right-wing politicians,” Flávio wrote in X.
The commission’s special rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, this year, met with the former president (PL), who stated that there was “political persecution” of opponents of the Lula government (PT), carried out through inquiries at the (Supreme Federal Court).
He also met with court ministers, members of civil society and the government and other Bolsonarist politicians. At the time, deputy Bia Kicis (PL-DF) told Sheet that the rapporteur’s visit was an opportunity to show “how censorship has been presented as a means of ‘protecting democracy'”.
Vaca was under pressure from Trumpist Republican deputies, who had asked for action on the STF minister’s actions.
In the recommendations of the report published this Friday (26), Vaca says that it is necessary to ensure that restrictions on freedom of expression are not imposed based on “vague, open concepts or that otherwise do not meet the requirements of legality, such as informational disorder and decontextualized information”. It also urges authorities to adopt a “precise and well-defined definition” of the scope of the term “hate speech.”
But the rapporteur states that it is necessary to “prioritize and conclude” the “investigations and criminal complaints involving individuals accused of leading the attempt to destabilize institutions”, in reference to the trial and punishment of those accused of involvement in the coup attempt.
Vaca also includes in the text a criticism of authorities that disseminate disinformation, saying it is necessary “to ensure that public authorities, especially those at the highest level, fulfill their duty to reasonably verify the facts on which they base their opinions; and to adopt internal legal provisions that require political parties to create and implement measures (…) to deal with speech that promotes intolerance, discrimination or hatred, or that constitutes disinformation with the aim of limiting freedom of expression or other human rights.”
In the view of the Brazilian government and civil society entities, the text made it clear that there is no censorship and leaves no room for use as ammunition for future sanctions on Brazil.
The American government has been using alleged violations of freedom of expression, which include combating disinformation, as justification for revoking visas and imposing Magnitsky Act sanctions, as occurred with Moraes, who .
This week, a British researcher based in the US, Imran Ahmed, from the Center for Combating Digital Hate, and Thierry Breton, the former European Union commissioner who was one of the architects of the regulation of internet platforms in the bloc, had their visas revoked.
According to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, they “led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.”
For Raísa Cetra, co-executive director of the organization Artigo 19 Brasil e América do Sul, the report “makes it clear that we are not currently experiencing a state of censorship and political persecution in Brazil.”
“There is a necessary balance between the special protection of political speech and the greater level of scrutiny of the authorities”, says Cetra.
Messages to the Judiciary
In the recommendations, there are other messages to the Judiciary. The rapporteur asks that court decisions involving restrictions on content on social networks be notified to digital platforms and users “with an explanation of the order adopted and the illegality of the specified content”.
One of the criticisms of Alexandre de Moraes was the secrecy of his determinations to remove content on networks, mainly on X.
The document advocates “limiting the possibility of restricting content on digital platforms without listening to the user or the platform to exceptional situations, ensuring, even in these cases, that confidentiality or judicial secrecy do not prevent the affected person from becoming aware of the court orders that motivated the restriction.”
But there is a defense of the need to regulate internet platforms. Vaca recommends “promoting the development of legal frameworks that address the challenges of the digital space, including the role of digital platforms and the use of artificial intelligence.”
This is with the caveats of ensuring that platforms should not be held responsible for content published by third parties “when they comply with appropriate due diligence parameters in reviewing that content, recognizing that moderation duties constitute obligations of means, not results.”
This issue is addressed by the STF’s decision on , which provides for the liability of big techs unless they prove they have made efforts to combat illicit content.
