Post by account_disabled on Jan 11, 2024 4:27:54 GMT -5
Lourival J. Santos — No, but public figures have some peculiarities. He has to understand that, by being public, he makes his image more available to society. The division between public life and private life is very thin. He has every right to privacy, right to honor and right to image, but his field of privacy is more restricted. There is greater interest from the population. I would say that there is almost a duty on the part of the population to observe the actions of public figures.
ConJur — Is there any legal loophole for censorship of the press in Brazil?
Lourival J. Santos — The Constitution Special Data prohibits, in a declared and express manner, the enactment of any law that may constitute a barrier or curtailment of freedom of expression. Because censorship is not a punishment for those who committed something wrong. It is an obstacle to the free expression of opinion. Citizens must have the freedom to even give a wrong opinion on any subject. He may then be punished for this. The judge cannot understand that freedom is an instrument of the strong against the weak. The greatest beneficiary of freedom is the individual himself. We fight for it.
ConJur — But we had several cases of prior censorship by court order. Isn't it censorship in the same way?
Lourival J. Santos — Yes, we had prior censorship after the promulgation of the so-called citizen Constitution. In the recent past, we have had emblematic cases of prior censorship of the press. The case of [ former governor of Rio de Janeiro Anthony ] Garotinho and [ former governor of the Federal District, Joaquim ] Roriz, among other famous cases. More recently, José Genoíno [ former national president of the PT ] was unsuccessful in his action to have websites remove quotes about him that he considered offensive. I was a lawyer for some press organizations that suffered prior censorship and, fortunately, we reversed the situation in the regional and higher courts. These cases of censorship are very serious.
ConJur — But is this a trend in Brazilian Justice, in general?
Lourival J. Santos — No. Today we see a very strong position in the Federal Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice — represented by big names such as ministers Celso de Mello, Marco Aurélio Mello, Edson Vidigal [former STJ minister] — in favor of freedom of expression without any censorship. Minister Marco Aurélio, not long ago, gave an interview in which he quoted an excerpt from Caetano Veloso's song It's forbidden to prohibit . He said: “in the matter of freedom of expression, freedom of the press, it is prohibited to prohibit”.
ConJur — Minister Cezar Peluso [of the STF] said that freedom of the press presupposes the right to reply. Do you agree with this?
Lourival J. Santos — The Constitution speaks of the right to a proportional response to the grievance. For there to be the right to request a response there must be a legal condition for this. This is not to say that every journalistic article can generate a right of reply. If it contains undue accusations, errors or falsification of truths, the people involved will have the right to respond to it. In addition to the constitutional provision, the right to reply is also guaranteed by the Press Law (5,250/67). If the minister said that the right to reply is independent of these assumptions, I disagree. However, I agree if it was said that the response should be granted if there is an grievance.
ConJur — Is there any legal loophole for censorship of the press in Brazil?
Lourival J. Santos — The Constitution Special Data prohibits, in a declared and express manner, the enactment of any law that may constitute a barrier or curtailment of freedom of expression. Because censorship is not a punishment for those who committed something wrong. It is an obstacle to the free expression of opinion. Citizens must have the freedom to even give a wrong opinion on any subject. He may then be punished for this. The judge cannot understand that freedom is an instrument of the strong against the weak. The greatest beneficiary of freedom is the individual himself. We fight for it.
ConJur — But we had several cases of prior censorship by court order. Isn't it censorship in the same way?
Lourival J. Santos — Yes, we had prior censorship after the promulgation of the so-called citizen Constitution. In the recent past, we have had emblematic cases of prior censorship of the press. The case of [ former governor of Rio de Janeiro Anthony ] Garotinho and [ former governor of the Federal District, Joaquim ] Roriz, among other famous cases. More recently, José Genoíno [ former national president of the PT ] was unsuccessful in his action to have websites remove quotes about him that he considered offensive. I was a lawyer for some press organizations that suffered prior censorship and, fortunately, we reversed the situation in the regional and higher courts. These cases of censorship are very serious.
ConJur — But is this a trend in Brazilian Justice, in general?
Lourival J. Santos — No. Today we see a very strong position in the Federal Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice — represented by big names such as ministers Celso de Mello, Marco Aurélio Mello, Edson Vidigal [former STJ minister] — in favor of freedom of expression without any censorship. Minister Marco Aurélio, not long ago, gave an interview in which he quoted an excerpt from Caetano Veloso's song It's forbidden to prohibit . He said: “in the matter of freedom of expression, freedom of the press, it is prohibited to prohibit”.
ConJur — Minister Cezar Peluso [of the STF] said that freedom of the press presupposes the right to reply. Do you agree with this?
Lourival J. Santos — The Constitution speaks of the right to a proportional response to the grievance. For there to be the right to request a response there must be a legal condition for this. This is not to say that every journalistic article can generate a right of reply. If it contains undue accusations, errors or falsification of truths, the people involved will have the right to respond to it. In addition to the constitutional provision, the right to reply is also guaranteed by the Press Law (5,250/67). If the minister said that the right to reply is independent of these assumptions, I disagree. However, I agree if it was said that the response should be granted if there is an grievance.