Supreme Court curtails judicial harassment against journalists

The Supreme Court ruled last week that subjecting a journalist or media outlet to multiple lawsuits regarding the same facts, in different locations across the country — thus making their defense difficult — is unconstitutional, as it puts freedom of expression at risk. 

This abusive strategy — already employed, for instance, by members of the evangelical Universal Church of the Kingdom of God against members of the press — is known as judicial harassment and increased during the years of the Jair Bolsonaro government (2019-2022), as shown by The Brazilian Report. The former president openly encouraged his supporters and allies to attack the professional press. 

The court determined, by ten votes to one, that, in the case of such harassment, the journalist or media outlet may request that all lawsuits be gathered in the individual’s place of residence, or where a company is headquartered. 

The defeated vote came from the case’s rapporteur, the now-retired Justice Rosa Weber. She ruled that the Supreme Court could not change rules of procedural law on where cases should be heard. Her former colleagues, however, considered that the change was a justified interpretation of the Constitution. 

The decision was taken in response to actions presented by the Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism (Abraji) — which created a monitor to track abusive processes in Brazil — and by the Brazilian Press Association (ABI). Both asked for measures against the abusive use of the justice system against members of the press. 

In addition to multiple coordinated lawsuits, there are other forms of judicial harassment that aim to silence journalists. For example, politicians, judges, and prosecutors may use their positions to influence the course of proceedings and put pressure on those being prosecuted. 

In the recent decision, a majority of Supreme Court justices also established that journalists and press organizations will only be considered civilly liable in an unequivocal case of intent or “obvious professional negligence in investigating the facts.”

Justices Alexandre de Moraes, Dias Toffoli and Gilmar Mende proposed less rigorous criteria, but lost. 

Therefore, “mere value judgments, opinions, or criticisms or the disclosure of true information on matters of public interest” should not give rise to claims for compensation.

At the end of 2023, a Supreme Court decision had increased the risks for journalists further, opening space for press outlets to respond in court for statements made by interviewees.

The post Supreme Court curtails judicial harassment against journalists appeared first on The Brazilian Report.