✓ verbatim from the press
Supreme Federal Court (STF) Justice Flávio Dino partially reformed a decision by the Electoral Regional Court of Amazonas (TRE-AM) that ordered the removal of videos by councilman Alexandre da Silva Salazar (PL) — known as Sergeant Salazar — against former Manaus mayor David Almeida (Avante). The decision, made on Sunday (7), upheld the removal of posts containing profanity but struck down the generic prohibition on using the expression "will never be governor." ✓
Press quotes (1)
"O ministro Flávio Dino, do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), decidiu neste domingo (7) manter parcialmente uma decisão da Justiça Eleitoral do Amazonas que suspendeu postagens ofensivas de um vereador de Manaus contra um adversário político."
The case reached the STF through an appeal filed by the councilman against the TRE-AM's April decision, which ordered the removal of the posts and established a R$ 200,000 fine for non-compliance. The electoral court considered that the videos published in March constituted early negative electoral propaganda against Almeida, a pre-candidate for governor of Amazonas. ✓
Press quotes (1)
"O caso chegou ao Supremo por meio de recurso protocolado pelo vereador Alexandre da Silva Salazar (PL), conhecido como Sargento Salazar, contra decisão do Tribunal Regional Eleitoral (TRE). Em abril, o tribunal determinou a retirada de postagens de propaganda negativa contra o pré-candidato ao governo estadual David Almeida (Avante) e o pagamento de multa de R$ 200 mil em caso de descumprimento."
For Dino, the removal of already published content is legitimate, but the abstract prohibition of the slogan violates freedom of expression. "Depending on the text and context, the slogan 'never will be' can be used, provided that the legal and ethical rules that should govern political battles are observed," the minister stated. According to him, the generic prohibition created a prior restriction incompatible with STF jurisprudence. ✓
Press quotes (1)
"Dependendo do texto e do contexto, o bordão 'Nunca Será' pode ser utilizado, desde que observadas as regras jurídicas e éticas que devem reger os embates políticos"
The minister emphasized that the posts exceeded the limits of legitimate political criticism. "Free public debate admits criticism, disagreements, harsh confrontations, but without crossing the boundaries demarcated by Criminal Law, the principle of morality and decorum in the exercise of parliamentary function," he recorded in the decision. ✓
Press quotes (1)
"O livre debate público admite críticas, discordâncias e confrontos ríspidos, mas sem que se ultrapassem as fronteiras demarcadas pelo Direito Penal, pelo princípio da moralidade e pelo decoro no exercício da função parlamentar."
Dino associated the proliferation of offenses in political discourse with a broader constitutional issue. "The colonization of political discourse by bizarreness and rudeness is not just a matter of civic or family education, it is also an acute constitutional issue related to the conditions for reasonable functioning of the democratic regime," the minister assessed. ✓
Press quotes (1)
"A colonização do discurso político por bizarrices e grosserias não é apenas uma questão de educação cívica ou familiar, é também uma aguda questão constitucional relacionada com as condições de funcionamento razoável do regime democrático"
The decision was made on Sunday (June 7) by Justice Flávio Dino in a monocratic capacity
TRE-AM established a R$ 200,000 fine in case of non-compliance with the removal order
Covered by only some sources, or where the accounts diverge.
Covered by only some sources (2)
The councilman specifically used the expression 'will never be governor'
Dino specifically cited ADPF 130 and ADI 4.451 decisions as precedents against prior censorship
-
What is the specific case number and formal identification of the appeal to the STF?
Why it's still unknown: The consulted sources do not mention the case number or the procedural class (ARE, RE, HC, etc.) used by the councilman in the appeal to the STF.
-
What is the specific content of the removed videos beyond the 'profanity'?
Why it's still unknown: Press reports generically mention 'profanity' and 'insults', but do not specify what concrete allegations were made against David Almeida or the context of the publications.
-
Which STF precedents were specifically invoked by Dino in the reasoning?
Why it's still unknown: Congresso em Foco mentions ADPF 130 and ADI 4.451 decisions on prior censorship, but sources do not detail how these precedents were applied to the concrete case.
Did not cover: Agência Brasil -
Did David Almeida or his defense comment on the STF decision?
Why it's still unknown: None of the consulted sources record any reaction or comment from the former mayor or his legal representatives about the partially favorable decision.
-
Are there available appeals against Dino's decision or is it final?
Why it's still unknown: Sources do not clarify whether the monocratic decision can be contested through declaratory embargos or if there are other procedural appeals available to the parties.