In a note, the minister says that the STF has worked to defend and promote freedom of expression in Brazil
The minister of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), Edson Fachin, refuted this Thursday (02) the report from the United States about violations of freedom of expression, which states that decisions about removing content and blocking profiles can constitute censorship and affect public debate, including elections.
In a note, the minister said that the report presents distorted characterizations of the nature and scope of specific decisions of the Federal Supreme Court, “as well as, more broadly, of the system of protection of freedom of expression in the Brazilian legal system”.
“In recent decades, the STF has worked to defend and promote freedom of expression in Brazilincluding to prevent undue restrictions on this right by judicial decisions.”, says Fachin, who argues that ministers of the Federal Supreme Court “strictly follow the constitutional preceptswith freedom of expression being one of these fundamental primaries of our Republic.”
Emphasizing the argument, he cites the 1988 Federal Constitutionwhich “incorporated a consistent system of protection for freedoms of expression, information and press”. “In a recent case, the STF curbed the practice of judicial harassment against journalists, with attempts to intimidate and silence press professionals,” says the document.
US Commission accuses Moraes of alleged censorship
Fachin’s position comes after the United States House Judiciary Committee, led by Republican Representative Jim Jordan, an ally of President Donald Trump, released a third report on alleged restrictions on freedom of expression in Brazil.
The document states that the by trying to restrict the freedom of expression of American citizens. According to the report, these actions could also impact the Brazilian elections in October 2026.
Fachin stated in a note that freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Brazil, however, he pointed out that this right is not absolute and may suffer exceptional limitations, especially when it is invoked as a shield for the commission of crimes.
“It is understood that, in certain cases, freedom of expression may exceptionally suffer specific limitations, particularly when these are necessary to preserve the effectiveness of another fundamental right. Likewise, the right to freedom of expression cannot be claimed for the commission of crimes defined by law”, he said.
Citing social networks, the minister highlights that, in these cases, depending on the content published, the platforms must:
- Create your own rules to create a notification system for users to report crimes and illegal acts;
- Provide service channels;
- Implement a process that allows users to understand removal decisions and can appeal such decisions;
- Prepare transparency reports with data on content moderation activities.
