Since 2021, Brazilian Congressperson Júlia Zanatta has opened at least 15 legal proceedings against journalists.
Her targets include TV commentators who accused her of xenophobia, reporters who relied on public data to expose unflattering information and a journalist who called her a “fascist Barbie” after the publication of a photo of her carrying high-caliber weapons.
Judicial harassment, the weaponization of judicial measures to silence critical voices, has become one of the most often used tools to intimidate the press in Brazil, according to the Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism, known by its Portuguese acronym Abraji.
At least 416 legal cases were filed against journalists from 2020 to 2023, Abraji reported.
Zanatta’s strategy is not new and it landed her on Abraji’s Monitor of Judicial Harassment against Journalists. The organization classifies the congressperson as a “contentious plaintiff,” or someone who has sued many journalists.
“The effect is frightening. This is the so-called 'chilling effect,' which prevents facts of public interest about these contentious plaintiffs from reaching the population or discourages future investigations,” Letícia Kleim, Abraji’s legal coordinator, told LatAm Journalism Review (LJR). “Often, this makes the journalist think that they must prepare for legal proceedings before even publishing.”
The most prolific litigants, according to Abraji, are the businessman Luciano Hang with 53 lawsuits, followed by lawyer Guilherme Henrique Branco de Oliveira with 47 and the gun advocacy group Associação Nacional Movimento Pró Armas with 17.
Zanatta, a member of Brazil’s Liberal Party and an ardent supporter of former President Jair Bolsonaro, has filed more lawsuits against journalists than anyone else this year, according to Abraji.
When contacted, Zanatta said her actions are justified and seek to protect her from unfair attacks.
One of the congressperson’s targets was CNN Brasil commentator and Universidade Federal Fluminense journalism professor Felipe Pena, concerning an observation he made on air in April.
On the program Arena, Pena said that Zanatta used xenophobic discourse the previous day when she compared her state, Santa Catarina, to Maranhão.
Less than a month later, Zanatta filed lawsuits against Pena and two other commentators from Arena, Pedro Venceslau and Tatiana Farah, for alleged slander, defamation and injury. In the case against Pena, Zanatta's lawyers said he “distorts the reality of the facts by saying that the Plaintiff had 'xenophobic,’ 'racist,’ 'misogynistic' speech, when in fact the Plaintiff only reported scientific data and facts.”
The argument did not convince the court. Last week, Judge Edmar Ramiro Correia, from the 3rd Special Civil Court of Brasília, dismissed the case.
In the ruling, the judge said that “in the same way that the plaintiff has the right to freely express her thoughts, saying practically whatever she wants, even if it causes indignation among many people, any citizen has the same right to give an opinion and criticize the plaintiff for her words, including journalists, whose role is to disclose the relevant facts and give their opinions.”
This has not been Zanatta's only defeat in court. At the end of July, a judge in Santa Catarina denied that journalist Guga Noblat should compensate Zanatta for calling her a “fascist Barbie.”
Despite victory in the courts, Pena considers that the filings have an intimidating effect.
“These cases create problems in the life of any journalist,” he told LJR. “They make us self-censor. I try to avoid it, but it becomes a ghost, you keep thinking how the person is going to invent a case.”
This type of intimidation is, according to lawyers specializing in press freedom, the desired effect. It is enough to win one single case to intimidate many journalists, lawyer Taís Gasparian, who defended several journalists targeted by Luciano Hang's lawsuits, told LJR.
“When someone files a lot of suits, there is a chance that they will win a case, not exactly because they are right, but because they face a judge who does not see the situation as that of a contentious plaintiff and understands that the person is right to complain about that,” Gasparian said. “A single conviction is enough to satisfy a contentious plaintiff, because the intention is to silence others.”
In addition to filing lawsuits, in some cases Zanatta also made requests to the Federal Prosecution Office (MPF) to investigate journalists. At the end of July, the MPF decided to archive an investigation request made by the congressperson against Revista Fórum journalists Luiz Carlos Azenha and Ivan Longo.
“She is not just filing criminal complaints, she is asking for investigations into crimes against honor. The position of congressperson allows her to request investigations from the MP, who opens the investigation as a matter of obligation,” lawyer André Matheus, who represented the two journalists and Felipe Pena, told LJR.
The mobilization of disparities is something that is recurrent when it comes to judicial harassment against journalists, lawyers say. Not all actions against journalists are cases of harassment or abusive use with the aim of silencing.
In cases of harassment, however, those who go to court also mobilize different levers of power.
“We call these cases unfounded because they are disproportionate. There is an imbalance when political, economic, legal or associative powers are mobilized by those who filed the lawsuits," said Letícia Kleim, from Abraji.
No jurisprudence
In May, the Supreme Federal Court (STF) established a precedent on judicial harassment that is valid for all Brazilian courts.
According to the court, “judicial harassment occurs when several legal actions are initiated against the same journalist or media company, in different cities and states, based on the same fact, with the purpose of silencing or intimidating.”
According to Abraji, that is the most frequent type of judicial harassment: when many individuals direct lawsuits against one journalist, as was the case with members of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God.
However, that precedent does not protect journalists from contentious plaintiffs.
“The STF defined what I call ‘quantitative judicial harassment,’ determined by the number of lawsuits against the person,” André Matheus said.
The lawyer said that the cases of contentious plaintiffs fall under another type of harassment, not covered by the STF decision.
“But there is also qualitative judicial harassment. If there are one or two or three lawsuits and there is no minimum supporting evidence, it is harassment.”
Part of the STF's decision, however, may have repercussions on contentious plaintiffs. According to the court, the sued journalist “may request all cases be joined in his home court.” However, the details of how this should happen are not known, because this depends on the application of the ruling, which could take several months or even years.
When contacted by LJR, Júlia Zanatta responded that her lawsuits are a form of defense against attacks that she considers dehumanizing.
“The question that must be asked is: what motivates a person who, due to political disagreement, accuses another of being a fascist or a Nazi,” Zanatta told LJR. “As a citizen and human being, I have the natural and legal right to defend myself against accusations that aim, first, to dehumanize me and, secondly, to destroy me.”
Zanatta said that while freedom of expression is important, it must be accompanied by responsibility. “The lawsuits I filed are a necessary response to attacks that go beyond legitimate criticism and turn into personal defamation,” she said.
The congressperson denied that her actions were intimidating in nature. “The number of lawsuits is proportional to the number of attacks received, and is not an attempt to intimidate or silence the press,” she said.
Asked about possible impacts on journalistic work, Zanatta, who says she has a degree in journalism, replied that they are “consequences of unjustified attacks” and that her stance is “merely defensive.”
“My intention is to defend my honor, integrity and the truth of the facts,” she said. “Justice is an essential institution for democracy, and it only remains strong if its mechanisms are used fairly.”
