The pre-campaign of () sued the (Federal Supreme Court) against the president () so that the PT member could be investigated for threats and incitement to crime.
The initiative follows a speech by Lula on the 2nd. He criticized Flávio for having encouraged the government to apply sanctions against Brazil, 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 their country deserve, who are going to ask for intervention from a country in our country? Think, think, meditate”,
Lula, in fact, got confused in the sentence, since the person hanged was not Reis, but Tiradentes himself, the martyr of the Inconfidência Mineira.
In the request to the Supreme Court, Flávio’s pre-campaign says that the president “instigated and incited millions of people to commit murder” of the senator, “in a clear act of threat that puts the physical integrity and even the life of the reporter at risk [Flávio]. Such conduct, as seen above, appears to fall within the scope of the crimes of threat and incitement to crime.”
She also highlights that the manifestation of a President of the Republic, when speaking publicly, involves “the highest authority of the national Executive Branch, holder of the largest institutional communication structure in the country and holder of a significant capacity for political, social and symbolic influence over millions of citizens”.
The authors of the petition argue that, for this reason, the presidential word goes beyond the field of mere personal opinion and can mobilize behavior, including illicit behavior, which would require even more rigorous institutional responsibility from the head of the Executive.
“This extraordinary potential for behavioral stimulation and public validation of certain behaviors, especially in contexts of high political polarization and accentuated social tension, in itself already requires increased attention from institutions”, they state.
“However, when the speech contains encouragement to violence, legitimization of political persecution or naturalization of criminal practices, this attention must be even more accentuated, not only for the individual protection of those affected, but also for the preservation of democratic stability itself and the integrity of the public debate.”
