The São Paulo Court upheld in the second instance the conviction of Hudson Luiz da Cruz de Menezes, who, in 2019, made a post on his social networks mocking the death of the boy Arthur Araújo da Silva,
Hudson will have to pay compensation for moral damages of R$1,412, an amount that will be plus interest and monetary correction. He will also have to publicize the conviction on his social networks.
due to a generalized infection caused by the bacteria Staphylococcus aureus.
In the post, made on a Facebook account identified as “Hudson Du Mato”, he stated: “Lula is just beginning to pay for the amount of life he killed by stealing public health funds. God’s Justice does not fail”, he stated at the time.
The person responsible for the post was identified after the social network provided the account’s registration data by court order.
Lawyers Eugênio Aragão and Ângelo Ferraro, who represent the president, stated in the action that the owner of the profile “completely departed from human respect” and insulted the PT member, “tainting his honor and illegally embarrassing him”.
“It is undeniable that such a delicate moment for a person must be at least respected,” they told the court.
Hudson’s defense was carried out through special supervision by the Public Defender’s Office.
According to defender Fernanda Soldi, the defendant was not the author of the questioned publication.
“He never spoke out in terms of the post published on the internet. He has no access to the internet, never used the aforementioned electronic media and cannot be held responsible for the act of a third party who, taking advantage of his lack of technological knowledge, unduly attributed the authorship of the publication to him”, maintained the defense.
The defender did not indicate, however, who was truly responsible for the message.
The defense also argued that, even if Hudson was the author of the publication, the content was not intended to offend Lula’s honor. According to the thesis presented, as he is a public figure and political agent of national prominence, the demonstration would be protected by freedom of expression and would constitute an opinion of a political nature, compatible with the principles of the Democratic Rule of Law.
The Court of Justice did not accept the argument and upheld the first instance conviction.
Judge Galdino Toledo Júnior, rapporteur of the case, said in the decision that the defendant disrespected mourning, “going beyond the mere discussion of political ideologies”.
Hudson, who was not located by the column, can still appeal.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
