“We are generating an inhibiting effect on the free expression of society”, says the STF minister in trial
Minister André Mendonça, of the Federal Supreme Court, said on Thursday (June 11, 2026) that the rule defined by the Court to hold digital platforms responsible could limit freedom of expression on social networks. The statement was given during the trial of appeals challenging the thesis approved by the court in 2025 on (Law 12,965, of 2014).
“I’m just saying that, in the current situation, we are generating an inhibitory effect, because the platforms, rightly, in order to preserve themselves, will delete content if there are doubts about the content”declared Mendonça.
The judgment deals with the final wording of the STF’s thesis on the civil liability of digital platforms for user publications. The Court has a majority to establish a transition period of 60 days for companies to adapt to the rules. The conclusion, however, . The Supreme Court should resume the analysis next Wednesday (June 17).
Mendonça criticized the expansion of article 21 of the Marco Civil da Internet. The device originally dealt with cases linked to the unauthorized disclosure of intimate images. For the minister, the STF included other forms of accountability in the article and also began to address the solidarity duty of platforms.
According to Mendonça, assessing whether a publication constitutes a crime is not always simple. “Even we, in trials of criminal situations or criminal cases, have a divergence of understanding about whether or not certain atypical conduct that gives rise to responsibility has been proven”these.
The judge stated that the model transfers to companies a decision that should be made by the Judiciary.
Court minister Flávio Dino contested the argument. He said that individuals make prior judgments in various economic activities, also outside the internet. “If I’m going to rent a house, I make a prior judgment. If a shopping mall is going to rent a store, it makes a prior judgment, under penalty of civil liability”he stated.
Dino said that it will be up to the Judiciary to give the final word when there is a dispute. According to him, the platform or the user may go to court to argue that a certain publication does not constitute a crime.
Mendonça responded that, if the platform makes a mistake, it will be held responsible. Dino stated that this risk is “inherent to economic activity”. Mendonça then declared: “By an act of the 3rd. I’m just saying that we are generating an inhibiting effect on the free expression of society through outsourcing with platforms”.
Dino asked where this effect would be happening. Mendonça replied: “In the decision”. Dino said: “No, in the real world, on the internet. If Your Excellency opens your social network, you will find 50 crimes there. There is no inhibitory effect in practice. Unfortunately, I would even like it to be”.
Mendonça concluded by saying there was an impact on the circulation of content. “It has a lot of inhibitory effect, yes”he stated.
