Federal deputy Gustavo Gayer (PL-GO) was sentenced by the Court of Justice of the Federal District and Territories (TJDFT) to pay R$20,000 to the PT for moral damages. The compensation stems from a publication that attributed the party’s participation in the knife attack suffered by former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL) during the 2018 election campaign.
Contacted through the consultancy, Gayer has not yet commented on the decision
The action was filed by the PT after Gayer released, on social media, a video in which he stated that the party ordered the attack committed by Adélio Bispo against the then presidential candidate, in Juiz de Fora (MG). According to the lawyers, the accusation “is known to be false” and “has already been refuted by official investigations and fact-checking agencies”.
InfoMoney Tool
Download now (and for free)!
“The PT ordered Adélio Bispo to kill the then presidential candidate Bolsonaro. The person saying this is the killer himself. This is such a gigantic bombshell. The press will do everything to hush up what I just said, so I ask you to share as much as possible”, says an excerpt of Gayer’s speech in the video, reproduced in the records.
The parliamentarian’s defense claimed the incidence of parliamentary immunity and the regular exercise of freedom of expression in the context of political debate and maintained that there was no compensable moral damage, asking for the action brought by the PT to be dismissed.
When analyzing the case, judge Wagner Pessoa Vieira concluded that the demonstration exceeded the limits of freedom of expression and was not protected by parliamentary immunity, in addition to having harmed the honor and image of the Workers’ Party (PT).
“It should be noted that the defendant, in his defense, was not successful in proving the veracity of the information conveyed, limiting himself to the generic invocation of parliamentary immunity and freedom of expression when dealing with a political fact. Therefore, the defendant’s statement did not express any informative content or political criticism. It only disseminates a fact that is dissociated from reality”, wrote the judge.
He also argued that it cannot be accepted that “a holder of a public mandate, under the pretext of informing and, claiming to be protected by the constitutional guarantee of free expression and parliamentary immunity, acts with abuse of rights to spread false news, with the intention of attacking political parties from the opposite political spectrum.”
In addition to the compensation, the preliminary order to remove the publication from digital platforms, imposed during the process, was maintained. The decision is of first instance and can be challenged through appeal.
Continues after advertising
