Court upholds compensation for moral damages from Mario Frias to Marcelo Adnet at R$30,000

The 18th Private Law Chamber of the Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice rejected the appeal filed by federal deputy Mario Frias (PL-SP) in the lawsuit filed by comedian Marcelo Adnet. He will have to pay R$30,000 in compensation for moral damages. In October of last year, Adnet had already won the lawsuit.

In September 2020, Frias, the then special secretary of Culture for the Bolsonaro government, complained on social media about a satire by Adnet on the Globoplay program “Sinta-se Em Casa”. In the sketch, the comedian imitated the former actor and ended up angering him.

Mario Frias said that the comedian “was a Judas, who didn’t even respect his own wife, cheating on the poor thing in public out of pure vanity and lack of character.” He also called Adnet a “filthy creature,” a “weak boy,” “no future,” a “decadent clown,” and a “scoundrel.”

The report sought the press office of Mario Frias, who did not respond. Marcelo Adnet’s office confirmed that the sentence was issued on Tuesday (16). The decision can still be appealed in higher courts.

O F5 had access to the decision of judge Leila Santos Lopes who explained that she had rejected the appeal because she considered that “the offenses made by the defendant violated the honor and image of the author, constituting an abuse in the exercise of the right to freedom of expression”.

She also stressed that the post had not been limited to making negative comments about the actor’s work. “The comment attributed qualities and mentioned facts of a personal nature.”

The judge emphasized that Mario Frias held a position “in which decorum is required, with great visibility, which is proven by the repercussion on social media”, in 2020.

She still maintained the amount stipulated at the beginning of the process: “In this regard, it is clear that the compensation should be maintained at R$30,000.00, proving to be consistent with the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, as well as with the punitive, pedagogical and preventive nature of the reparation funds, and not deserving of a reduction.