This decision by Minister André Mendonça, as presented, carries a serious and concerning dimension of prior censorship. When not only the removal of a specific publication is determined, but also the preemptive blocking of future content, supposedly "equivalent," it opens the door to preemptively preventing the circulation of criticisms, denunciations, comments, and political debates. In a democracy, especially during an election period, we cannot accept that platforms receive a sort of license to silence, in advance, anything that may displease a candidacy or a political group. Even more serious is that many of the facts treated as "disinformation" are part of the public debate and are notorious, documented, widely discussed by the press, and known by society. One cannot label as fake news that which is a public fact, political criticism, collective memory, or a legitimate question about the statements, alliances, positions, and conduct of public agents. The Electoral Justice must combat deliberate lies, but it cannot become an instrument of political shielding, erasure of facts, or intimidation of those exercising the constitutional right to inform, criticize, and express themselves. It is a scandal that, once again, in the final stretch of the electoral process, attempts are made to restrict public debate through broad and potentially silencing decisions. Freedom of expression does not only exist for comfortable or favorable speeches to the powerful: it exists, above all, to protect criticism, divergence, and the circulation of information of collective interest. We are already mobilized and preparing representations in defense of people who are being targeted by this type of measure. (translated)
