The speech by the president (PT) in which he mentioned the conduct of () made PT and Bolsonaro supporters reverse their positions on freedom of expression in an election year.
If in 2018, the PT went to the (Federal Supreme Court) against the statement about “shooting the bullet” made by the then pre-candidate for President, now Flávio’s pre-campaign is the one pointing out incitement and threat. For legal experts consulted by the Sheetneither Lula nor Bolsonaro committed such crimes.
The mention made by Lula was made in the context in which the PT member regretted the Donald Trump government’s proposal for a new 25% tariff on goods imported from Brazil. The USTR (Office of the US Trade Representative) justifies the measure on the grounds that Brazil adopts unfair trade practices.
The announcement was made after the opening of an investigation at the agency and a week after Flávio’s visit to the White House.
During an event in Catalão (GO), Lula stated that the announcement came days after the meeting between Flávio and Marco Rubio, US Secretary of State, accused the Bolsonaro children of acting against national interests and asked what the senator and his allies deserved.
“They are traitors. For less than that, Joaquim Silvério dos Reis, who denounced Tiradentes, was hanged. What do traitors to the country deserve, who are going to ask for intervention from a country in our country? Think, think, meditate”, he declared.
Lula, in fact, got confused in the sentence, since the person hanged was not Reis, but Tiradentes himself, the martyr of the Inconfidência Mineira.
According to the Panel column, Flávio’s pre-campaign in the Federal Supreme Court against the PT member, accusing him of having committed crimes of threat and incitement to crime.
On the same date, the senator suggested that Lula’s speech may have been a kind of “dog whistle” for criminal factions to commit an attack against him. The term refers to the dog whistle that is inaudible to humans and used to train dogs and is usually used when trying to pass a coded message to a specific group.
“I hope it’s not true. All I had to do was act against PCC and CV and he [Lula] makes a kind of dog whistle for the factions to execute me. I hope to God that wasn’t the intention, because if it was, he should be in prison,” he said.
Bolsonaro’s phrase, in turn, was said at an election campaign event in 2018. “We’re going to shoot all the fire here in Acre. We’re going to send these pickaxes running from Acre. Since they like Venezuela so much, this group has to go there. But there’s not even mortadella there, folks, they’re just going to have to eat grass,” said the then candidate for president in 2018.
At the time, the PT reacted and filed a criminal complaint with the STF for electoral insult and incitement, which was . In 2023, minister Cristiano Zanin accepted a request from the PGR (Attorney General’s Office) and the Acre Electoral Court, justifying the end of Bolsonaro’s mandate.
In 2024, the electoral judge responsible for the case understood that the episode did not fit into the crimes mentioned and that the case was archived.
From a technical point of view, consultant and professor of criminal law at FGV Direito SP Raquel Scalcon states that the context in which Lula’s speech was made does not allow it to be classified as incitement or threat.
“Incitement to crime is a concrete invitation to action, in which there is a real risk that people will actually be motivated and act because of it. For example, in a crowd context where there is someone with a microphone saying ‘let’s get out of here and break everything'”, he says.
“These are speeches with an aggressive tone that have been an agenda and a characteristic of political campaigns. It seems unnecessary to me and a loss of opportunity to have a more rational electoral discussion”, he concludes.
Ivar Hartmann, associate professor of law at Insper, also assesses that Lula and Bolsonaro’s demonstrations should not be restricted and states that both are protected by freedom of expression.
Regarding Lula’s speech, he considers that the most reprehensible thing is the fact that the statement was made while in office and because it referred to Flávio.
“Lula is president and much greater care is expected in relation to demonstrations that are alluding to violence against political opponents from someone who handles the power of the federal Executive. Bolsonaro did not have, at the time he held the demonstration, anywhere near the power that Lula has today”, he states.
At the same time, Hartmann says that Bolsonaro’s speech is more reprehensible in terms of making a call to action, unlike Lula.
“Lula is not saying to people: Flávio Bolsonaro should be hanged or we are going to hang him or I am going to hang him. He is saying: think about it. It is very different and less reprehensible than Bolsonaro saying ‘let’s shoot the bullet”, he says, adding that the meaning used by him was to expel and not to kill.
