National journalism associations criticize the decision of the Bahia Court that ordered the removal of information disclosed in a report by this digital newspaper
The (Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism) and the (National Association of Newspapers) criticized the decision of the Bahia Court that a report from the Poder360.
An injunction ordered this digital newspaper to remove the name and image of a delegate from a . The text had been published on December 28, 2025 with the title “Bahia delegate investigates case in which her lawyer is a party”.
Before the Court’s decision, which responded to a request from the delegate, there was an extrajudicial notification from the Union of Police Delegates of the State of Bahia and an attempt by the Federal Police to obtain data that could lead to the breach of the source’s confidentiality, another constitutional guarantee that was threatened.
The president of Abraji, Ana Carolina Moreno, said she repudiated the court’s decision and cited that there is concern about the removal of journalistic content, “mainly with a view to protecting public agents”.
Read Abraji’s full note:
“Abraji repudiates and views with concern measures to remove content from journalistic material, mainly in view of the objective of protecting public agents, who must be aware of the need to scrutinize their actions. We hope that this decision will be reformed.”
The ANJ called the decision “clear violation of the Constitution, which explicitly prohibits censorship”. The association demands an immediate review of the decision, which, according to the organization, compromises the free exercise of journalism.
Read the full ANJ note:
“The ANJ views with great concern another episode of judicial censorship. The decision is a clear violation of the Constitution, which explicitly prohibits censorship. The ANJ expects the immediate review of the decision, which directly compromises the free exercise of journalism.”
The Tornavoz Institute, an association that defends freedom of expression, also spoke out. He classified the episode as “regrettable” and said the decision is unconstitutional.
“Those who embrace public life should be aware that their actions can be criticized and analyzed. And the press is responsible for shedding light on these actions”, stated the entity.
Read the note from the Tornavoz Institute:
“It is regrettable that even today there are court decisions that order the removal of content from the Internet.
“Precisely due to the electronic nature of the platform, news can be corrected or amended, if necessary. But the order that determines that information be removed from citizens’ access is unconstitutional.
“Especially when this information is of public interest, as it involves public officials.
“Those who embrace public life should be aware that their actions can be criticized and analyzed. And the press is responsible for shedding light on these actions.”
REPERCUSSION
Several journalistic outlets published news about censorship of Poder360:
UNDERSTAND
The PF requested the Poder360 on December 23, 2025 ( – PDF – 127 kB) data that could lead to the identification of a source protected by journalistic secrecy – a device guaranteed by article 5, item 14, of the Federal Constitution. In this request, which had no legal validity, the PF gave a period of 15 days for the Poder360 inform the date and time at which the editorial team received the data used in the report “”published on August 21, 2025.
PF delegate Rony José Silva wrongly claimed that his request would not violate the constitutional right to protect journalistic sources. THE Poder360 contested this position in a letter signed on behalf of this digital newspaper by its lawyers Pierpaolo Cruz Bottini, Igor Sant’Anna Tamasauskas and Beatriz Canotilho Logarezzi. Here’s the do Poder360 (PDF – 9 MB).
Delegate Rony José Silva’s demand is part of an investigation conducted by the PF’s Office for the Suppression of Financial Crimes in Bahia. In his letter, without legal basis, the delegate warns that failure to comply with the request could constitute a crime of disobedience, the penalty for which is 15 days to 6 months in detention, in addition to a fine.
O Poder360 clarified, when responding to the PF letter, that he would not provide details on how he obtained the information. He explained in a didactic way that it would not be possible to reveal any data that could identify its source, directly or indirectly. For this digital newspaper, meeting the delegate’s demand would represent a direct affront to the constitutional guarantee that protects journalistic work and press freedom. Protection extends to any elements that may indicate who provided the information.
Revealing the date and time at which information was obtained can allow cross-referencing with external data – such as images from security cameras, building access records or message history – and, thus, lead to the identification of who provided the material to the journalistic vehicle. Without this protection in the exercise of professional journalism, sources could be exposed to reprisals and would stop collaborating with reports that reveal irregularities or possible abuses of authority.
CONTENT REMOVAL
After the refusal of the Poder360 to the PF’s request about how the information had been obtained, came the 1st request to remove the reports about the case from the air. On January 6, 2026, the Union of Police Delegates of the State of Bahia sent an extrajudicial notification to the Poder360 to take down the report “published by this digital newspaper on December 3, 2025. Here is the of the delegates’ union (PDF – 3 MB).
In the document, the union states that the report would have unduly associated the actions of a delegate from the Civil Police of Bahia with a possible conflict of interests without support in an administrative or judicial decision.
O Poder360 disagreed with this interpretation. Journalistic reports can report facts of public interest (as long as they are not false, of course) without there being an administrative or judicial decision regarding what happened. It would be impractical for professional journalism to report facts only after they have been validated by an official body. The union’s request reveals a mistaken interpretation of how press freedom works in democratic societies.
The news reported by Poder360 –and contested by the delegates’ union– was restricted to narrating the facts: a delegate from Bahia conducted an investigation into a suspicion of domestic violence presented by lawyer Nestor Távora. However, in the past, Távora had been a defense lawyer for this very delegate (who went to court to be appointed to the position she currently occupies). This context led to questions presented by one of the parties involved. The report narrated these facts. The occurrence of this past connection between the delegate and the lawyer was not the subject of controversy.
Never the Poder360 categorically stated the existence of a conflict of interest. It only reported facts and the resulting questions, without giving a conclusive judgment on any irregularity. This final judgment in fact does not belong to this digital newspaper – to the Poder360 It is incumbent upon the disclosure of information of public interest related to the case, as was done.
The delegates’ union wanted the Poder360 remove reports about the episode from the air and delete posts on all digital platforms of this digital newspaper. THE Poder360 rejected the request in a letter sent to the entity on February 12, 2026. Here is the of this digital newspaper (PDF – 9 MB).
Subsequently, at the request of the delegate, a case was opened in the Special Civil Court with the same objective of removing the content from the air. In this legal action, a preliminary (provisional) decision was issued determining the Poder360 the removal of the delegate’s name and photo from her publications. As it was a court order, this digital newspaper complied with the order: it deleted the delegate’s name and photo from the report, but kept the news on air. THE Poder360 will adopt the appropriate legal measures to reverse the decision.
UNDERSTAND THE CASE
The report cited by the Federal Police, “”reports a representation presented to the Brazilian Bar Association against 3 lawyers: Ana Patrícia Dantas Leão, Eugênio de Souza Kruschewsky and Michelle Santos Allan de Oliveira.
The representation was presented in the context of the divorce between Lucas Queiroz Abud and Fabiana Durand Gordilho. According to Lucas’ defense document, the 3 lawyers manipulated elements of the process and produced fraudulent evidence. The defense alleges that there was procedural fraud and an attempt to influence judicial decisions. Those involved denied having committed irregularities.
Another report from Poder360 about the episode, “”published on December 3, 2025, reported a possible conflict of interest.
The report showed that one of the lawyers involved in the case, Nestor Távora, had previously worked as the delegate’s own lawyer. The situation raised questions presented by Abud’s defense, as the delegate did not declare herself a suspect to conduct the investigation.
