By Ludmila Cassio
Justice Cármen Lúcia of Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF), the country's highest court, said on Friday, Nov. 13, that former President Jair Bolsonaro harmed press freedom by blocking at least 60 journalists on his profile on X, formerly Twitter. She made the statement while reviewing a lawsuit filed by the Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism (Abraji). Even so, she closed the case.
Harsh criticism, but the case was dropped
The justice ended the lawsuit because, in her assessment, it had lost its purpose. The reason is straightforward: Bolsonaro, Brazil's president from 2019 to 2022, no longer holds the presidency. The dispute over the blocks was therefore closed because of his change of status, not because the court found the conduct acceptable.
'Nobody is the ruler of a Republic of oneself'
According to Cármen Lúcia, excluding journalists from an account used to address governmental and political matters affects the role of someone who represents the people. In her view, the then-president could not restrict access over ideological disagreement.
“The exclusion of someone from the virtual agora in which the then president of the Republic presented himself on governmental and, therefore, political matters, of the polis, which belongs to everyone, means eliminating the citizen from the public statements of someone who committed to performing the role of representative of the citizen one seeks to eliminate from that public space,” the justice said.
In another passage, she said a representative cannot hide from those he represents. “A representative cannot hide from the represented, much less, in a Republic, by excluding from the republican virtual agora whoever does not please him or suit his interest. Nobody is the ruler of a Republic of oneself. Out of ideological or political like or dislike, a citizen is not removed from public debate,” she stressed.
Choosing who could see the account
The sharpest point of her statement came when she addressed the choice of who could follow the account. According to her, by excluding citizens and selecting only those favorable to him, the authority addressed only groups or people sympathetic to him, which, in her words, goes against the constitutional principle of the Republic and of democracy.
Bolsonaro's defense
Bolsonaro's defense does not agree with that reading. His lawyers say the former president committed no illegal or abusive act. The STF decision thus carries strong criticism of the blocks, but those who speak for Bolsonaro maintain that his conduct was within the law.
Why it matters
The case shows how the social media accounts of public officials have become a field of legal dispute. Even with the case closed, the justice's remarks put on record, in forceful terms, that blocking journalists on an official profile was treated as an affront to democracy. The open question is whether this view will carry weight in other cases involving authorities and public communication channels.
VDD Analysis
The debate over press freedom is legitimate and should be conducted with rigor. Still, it is worth noting that the justice herself closed the case because it had lost its purpose, and that Bolsonaro's defense denies any illegality. In a country that needs legal certainty, decisions about the reach of politicians' personal profiles deserve clear rules, applied to all sides, and not only to those who are, or were, in power.
