Helio Beltrão: Should we accept the head curator?

The state obsession with censorship continues. On its own initiative, the STF has been coercing social networks to block, on its behalf, unacceptable, unpleasant, hyperbolic speech. The secret investigations that have been running for almost three years were created to allegedly fight fake news and criticism of the STF or other institutions. But the real target is known to everyone: President Bolsonaro and one of his most active squires, the Bolsonarista journalist Allan dos Santos.

National injunctions have been issued through monocratic decisions. These are violations of the constitutional right to freedom of the press and expression. The state club of censorship became uncontrollable with the extreme audacity of imposing a fine of BRL 100,000 a day on any Brazilian who found ways to access Telegram during the blockade. There is no legal basis for such arbitrariness.

Telegram, WhatsApp and other forms of direct communication, without curation, are public utility services that allow effective and free communication for millions of Brazilians. They are fundamental platforms for work, personal and family contact, the debate of ideas, and even for public safety, as is the case of the Civil Defenses throughout Brazil that use the Telegram network to protect the population against disasters.

Why should the entire population be punished for the allegedly illegal actions of others? Why violate freedom of expression (even in the absence of an imminent threat of physical harm to someone, which would justify intervention)? Why should we endorse this new “function of the State”, of chief curator of the country, as a journalist friend says? This is the central issue.

The rationalizations of the suppression of Brazilians’ rights abound, pointing out that Telegram must obligatorily submit to the STF’s determinations, period, without discussion. You must delete posts, block the channel of “fake news” publishers, prevent them from opening new channels, reveal personal data, etc.

It is obvious and consensual that the company and all Brazilians should have the judgment to obey the STF, due to the consequences for themselves or for society. But the ban on the use of cell phones by all Brazilians to communicate is not justified. It is disproportionate to punish millions to hold three individuals in the (un)legal decision accountable. It’s like closing Avenida Paulista because there are criminals there.

What is at stake is censorship. Let’s not forget that the Telegram block came from the order to delete content. Many of the president’s enemies rationalized censorship in order to silence him. They don’t realize that history demonstrates that, once invented, the gag will be stuck in the mouth of anyone who challenges or criticizes power or the establishment.

The dance between STF and Telegram last week is just training for the main event, the elections. The STF celebrates the success of the training and will appoint the TSE as chief curator at its side during the campaign. The president’s opponents are rooting for them to find justification for taking down their personal channels. If it does, I suspect the effect will be the opposite of what was expected.

As an illustration, since Friday (18) the Streisand effect nurtured by the STF has added 200,000 followers to the Telegram president’s channel (now with about 1.3 million followers). Lula has less than 60 thousand.

Such figures are much less decisive than the voluntary interaction among Brazilians, which multiplies relevant content on all networks and on the internet, regardless of the degree of veracity. The channel from which the information comes from is not very relevant, it can be anywhere. The network is supreme, as it works with exponential and instantaneous dissemination. The internet interprets censorship as a malfunction and follows the thread another way. Fortunately.