IstoÉ this week: “The Army at the limits of its power (strength)” See also Rio: “Rendition to Militias By Army Troops?”
Consultor Jurídico mixes apples and oranges in a report on a libel suit lost by the IstoÉ newsweekly (Editora Três) last week after ten years in the courts.
IstoÉ é condenada por publicar denúncias não comprovadas
IstoÉ is found responsible for publishing unproved accusations
Menos de uma semana depois de o jornal O Globo cumprir condenação que o mandou publicar, pela terceira vez, direito de resposta do desembargador federal Ivan Athié, com chamada de capa e esclarecimentos em três páginas, agora foi a vez da revista IstoÉ cumprir obrigação judicial. A edição desta semana (25/6) traz quatro páginas ocupadas com sentença que a obriga pagar R$ 250 mil de indenização por danos morais à Organização das Cooperativas Brasileiras (OCB) e ao então presidente da entidade, Dejandir Dalpasquale. Ainda cabe recurso.
Less than a week after the O Globo daily complied with a court order that ordered it to publish, for the third time, a right of response from federal judege Ivan Athié, with a callout on the front page and three pages of explanations, it was the turn of IstoÉ to comply with a court order. This week’s edition (June 25) carries four pages of the sentence that obliged it to pay R$250,000 in damages to the Organization of Brazilian Cooperatives (OCB) and then-president Dejandir Dalpasquale. The decision can be appealed.
Essas determinações se somam às multas aplicadas à Editora Abril, que publica a Veja São Paulo, e à Folha de S.Paulo por terem publicado entrevistas com pré-candidatos à prefeitura de São Paulo. Os fatos revelam a escalada do assédio judicial contra a imprensa, mas mostram também o ânimo de setores pouco satisfeitos com a qualidade do jornalismo praticado no país. Afinal, nem mesmo entre jornalistas se acredita que a imprensa acerta sempre.
These rulings come as the Editora Abril, publisher of Veja São Paulo, and the Folha de S. Paulo daily, were fined for having run interviews with pre-candidates for the São Paulo mayor’s office.
The Thomist ponderations of election judges as to what and what does not constitute “campaigning out of season” is a strange subject. Why should I not be able to say, at any time, for example, that I plan to run for mayor in 2012? Why should a magazine or newspaper not be able to ask me things like, “Why are you telling me this?” and “What makes you think you can run this town?”
But that and the habit Brazilian news organizations have of printing baseless accusations (sometimes even lies) and then refusing the right of the reply to the targets of those accusations, are not two faces of the same coin. They are not comparable manifestations of “eroding press freedoms” in Brazil, though there are those who would like you to think so.
These events represent an escalation of the judicial assault on the press, but also illustrate the zeal of those dissatisfied with the quality of journalism practiced in Brazil. After all, not even journalists think the press always gets it right.
There are many fine Brazilian journalists (many of them unemployed), but in general, I have never in my life seen such a constant stream of vicious, gabbling claptrap in my daily newspapers as I started seeing when I starting hanging out down here.
A revista IstoÉ foi condenada por publicar as reportagens “Cooperativa da Corrupção” e a “Mamata do Cooperativo”, nas edições de 25 de dezembro de 1996 e de 8 de janeiro de 1997. Nos textos, afirmou que a organização estaria envolvida em irregularidades apuradas em sindicância sigilosa do Ministério da Agricultura. A reportagem trouxe, ainda, uma foto do então presidente da associação e ex-ministro da Agricultura, Dejandir Dalpasquale, com a legenda: “Ligações perigosas”.
IstoÉ magazine was condemned for running the articles “Cooperative of Corruption” and “Suckling at the Teat of the Cooperative” in its editions of December 25, 1996 and January 8, 1997.
Ten years ago. You can smear someone, make them go to court to get the right of reply, and not have to face the music for a decade or more, by which time the whole thing has blown over.
It reported that the organization had supposedly been denounced a secret investigation by the Ministry of Agriculture. The story was accompanied by a photo of the cooperative’s president at the time, Mr. Dalpasquale, with a caption reading “Dangerous Liaisons.”
As notícias “denunciavam” esquema de corrupção na utilização de verbas públicas repassadas para projetos de cooperativismo rural em todo país, afirmando que boa parte do dinheiro destinado às cooperativas acabou sendo usada para obras particulares, viagens internacionais, festas do peão de boiadeiro e até compra de meias-calças, saias e blazers em uma boutique de Copacabana (RJ), estimando um rombo de pelo menos R$ 10 milhões. As afirmações não foram provadas.
The articles “denounced” a corruption scheme that used public funds allocated to rural cooperative projects nationwide, stating that a good part of the money destined for these projects wound up being used for private projects, international travel, rodeos, and even the purchase of clothing from a Copacabana boutique. The magazine estimated the cost to the public treasury at at least R$10 million. These statements were never proven.
Na ação, os autores esclareceram que a sindicância foi aberta para apurar fraudes de terceiro e que a revista abusou do direito de informar ao publicar fatos inverídicos ou equivocadamente interpretados, colocando a entidade no mesmo contexto das falcatruas supostamente cometidas por outras pessoas.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs explained that an internal review was conducted to detect fraud by third parties and that the magazine abused its right to inform the public by publishing facts that were untrue or wrongly interpreted, placing the organization in the same context as wrongdoing committed by others
I wonder if the defendants trotted out the Veja defense: “We shrieked nonexistent facts in good faith, because we are incompetent. And being stupid is not a crime, is it?”
In the U.S., we have the “actual malice” standard for this. And it is kind of tricky to apply, wouldn’t you agree?
Para o juiz da 23ª Vara Cível de São Paulo, o dolo foi intenso e a gravidade da ofensa foi grande. “A repercussão foi incalculável, pois não se sabe quantas pessoas leram a revista e comentaram o assunto. A autora OCB é organização de grande importância no sistema cooperativista brasileiro. O autor Dejandir Dalpasquale foi presidente dessa entidade e desempenhou vários cargos públicos de grande relevância. Diante de tudo isso, é justa a indenização”, registrou a sentença.
The São Paulo state judge found significant wrongdoing and harm in these facts. “The consequences were incalculable, since we do not know how many read the magazine and commented on the matter. Plaintiff OCB is an organization of great importance in the Brazilian rural cooperative system. Plaintiff Dalpasquale was president of the OCB and occupied various important public offices. Given all this, the awarding of damages is justified,” the sentence read.
Direito de resposta
Right of respose
Na edição do dia 16 de junho, o jornal O Globo teve de publicar direito de resposta do desembargador federal Ivan Athié a reportagens publicadas pelo jornal nos dias 10, 11 e 13 de março de 2002. De acordo com os textos, o desembargador estaria envolvido em esquema de venda de decisões judiciais no Tribunal Regional Federal da 2ª Região.
In its June 16 [2008] edition, the O Globo daily had to publish a right of reply from federal judge Athié to reporting published in the paper on March 11, 12, and 13, 2002. According to these articles, the judge was involved in a scheme for selling verdicts in the Federal Regional Court for the Second Region.
Some federal judges in Rio were later arrested on similar charges: taking money to hand down rulings favorable to the interests of the Rio gambling rackets.
O direito de resposta foi garantido pela 1ª Vara Criminal de Duque de Caxias, no Rio de Janeiro. O Globo trouxe chamada na capa com referência aos textos e publicou três esclarecimentos do desembargador nas páginas 3, 4 e 13 do jornal. As mesmas páginas onde foram publicados os textos que continham referências ao desembargador.
The right of reply was guaranteed by the First Criminal Bar of Duque de Caxias, in Rio de Janeiro state. O Globo provided the right of reply with a front-page callout and published three clarifications from the judge on pages 3, 4 and 13 of the edition.
I never know how to translate chamadas into gringo journo jargon. You know what it is, though: A short front-page item with a jump to an inside page — “Read all about it on p. 4″
Censura
Censorship
Já a condenação imposta pelo juiz auxiliar da propaganda da 1ª Zona Eleitoral de São Paulo, Francisco Carlos Shintate, à Folha da Manhã, que edita o jornal Folha de S. Paulo, e à Editora Abril, que publica a Veja, por publicarem entrevista com pré-candidata à prefeitura paulistana Marta Suplicy, causou polêmica.
Meanwhile, the sentence imposed by auxiliary elections judge Shinate of the First Electoral Zone of São Paulo, on the Folha da Manhã, published by the Folha de S. Paulo group, and on Editora Abril, which publishes Veja, for having run an interview with mayoral pre-candidate Marta Suplicy, has caused controversy.
We were in a second-hand bookstore yesterday and ran across some books by the pop psychologist-sexologist turned politician from the 1980s. If I were running Alckmin for Mayor, I would xerox the author photos and disseminate them widely.
But then again, we are all easily embarrassed by the way we wore our hair in the 1980s, right? (I actually had a freaking Eurotrash ponytail, ugh.)
Para o juiz, a entrevista caracterizou propaganda antecipada. Marta foi multada em pouco mais de R$ 42 mil pelas entrevistas concedidas à imprensa. O jornal e a revista foram multados em R$ 21 mil cada.
In the judge’s opinion, the interview constituted premature campaign advertising. Marta was fined a little over R$42,000 for the interviews granted to the press. The magazine and newspaper were fined R$21,000 apiece.
Entidades de imprensa classificaram como “ato de censura” e “intimidação” a decisão do juiz. “O juiz estará decretando o fim da liberdade de imprensa”, disse, em nota, a Associação Nacional de Jornais (ANJ).
Media trade associations called the ruling “an act of censorship” and “intimidation.” “The judge is declaring the end of press freedom,” the National Newspaper Association (ANJ) said in a press release.
A ONG inglesa Artigo 19 pediu aos juízes brasileiros que deixem de impor multas à imprensa por publicar entrevistas e reportagens relacionadas às eleições municipais deste ano. Para a entidade, as decisões violam claramente o direito à liberdade de expressão, garantido pela Constituição e pela legislação internacional.
The English NGO Article 19 asked Brazilian judges not to fine the press for publishing interviews and reporting related to the municipal elections this year. In its view, these decisions clearly violate the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Brazilian Constitution and international law.
“A imprensa exerce um papel muito importante ao informar o público sobre as eleições, garantindo que os cidadãos compreendam a posição dos candidatos e partidos. Proibir a publicação de entrevistas com candidatos prejudica a habilidade do público de fazer escolhas eleitorais bem informadas”, disse Agnes Callamard, diretora executiva da Artigo 19.
“The press exercises an important role in informing the public about the elections, …” yada yada yada, the same old same old. Not that is not a point worth reiterating, mind you.
Em entrevista ao site Consultor Jurídico, o advogado do jornal Folha de S. Paulo, Luis Francisco Carvalho Filho, classificou a decisão de absurda e disse que vai recorrer ao Tribunal Regional Eleitoral de São Paulo. Para ele, “não é papel da Justiça Eleitoral estabelecer regime de exceção e censura”. E disse, ainda: “O jornal tem o dever de informar os seus leitores.”
In an interview with Consultor Jurídico, Folha de S. Paulo attorney Carvalho called the decision absurd and said he will appeal to the regional elections tribunal. In his view, “It is not the role of the elections tribunals to establish a state of exception and censorship.” He added: “The newspaper has a duty to inform its readers.”
Has a duty to inform its readers about how great a gizmo the iPhone is.
O advogado Alexandre Fidalgo, do escritório Lourival J. Santos Advogados, que representa a revista Veja, disse que também vai recorrer. Fidalgo usará os argumentos do interesse da sociedade, da liberdade de imprensa e do objetivo meramente informativo da entrevista que a revista fez com a candidata na Veja São Paulo. “O destino da informação é a sociedade. Ela tem que ser informada sobre o que pensam os candidatos”, sustentou.
Attorney Fidalgo of the Lourival J. Santos lawfirm, representing Veja, said he, too, will appeal. He used arguments based on the public interest, freedom of the press, and the exclusively informative intentions of the interview with the candidate in the magazine’s Veja São Paulo edition.
Separate from the national news magazine, these metro editions are sort of a local version of TimeOut. Good listings. It is kind of hard to avoid the temptation to buy them because the cultural listings are well done and very complete.
Nevertheless, we do not buy Abril publications (except Exame, which I bill to a client because I read it for work). You can cobble together the same info from the Internet with a bit of keyboard pounding.
O advogado especialista em Direito Eleitoral, Ricardo Penteado, entende que a candidata, o jornal e a revista não deveriam ser multados: “Uma entrevista não tem propósito eleitoral. Propaganda se faz com esse propósito. Não cabe à Justiça Eleitoral julgar a conseqüência reflexa de uma entrevista ou de que forma ela vai influenciar ou não o voto dos eleitores.”
Election law specialist Ricardo Penteado believes the candidate, the paper and the magazine should not have been fined. “An interview has no element of campaigning, the way campaign advertising does. It is not up to the elections tribunals to judge the consequences of an interview or how it may or may not influence the way voters cast their ballots.”
Penteado is the director of the IDPE, the Institute of Election and Political Law. PHP-powered Web site by Joomla!
Filed under: Brazil, Journalism, Legal Affairs
