Public officials must expect their names to appear in publications, positively or negatively.
Em Brasília, uma juíza federal rejeitou as queixas criminais movidas pelo Procurador-Geral da República Augusto Aras contra o jornalista Milton Blay e o professor de direito Conrado Hubner, que haviam publicado críticas contundentes à sua gestão. A juíza Polyanna Martins Alves concluiu que opiniões sobre agentes públicos — mesmo as mais severas — pertencem ao domínio legítimo da liberdade de expressão, não ao da difamação. A decisão ecoa um princípio antigo nas democracias abertas: quem exerce o poder deve suportar o peso do escrutínio público. No Brasil de hoje, esse princípio precisou ser reafirmado em juízo.
- O Procurador-Geral da República usou o aparato criminal do Estado para processar dois intelectuais que o acusaram de cumplicidade silenciosa com violações constitucionais do presidente Bolsonaro.
- A ação judicial contra Blay e Hubner gerou alarme sobre o uso estratégico de processos por difamação para intimidar jornalistas e acadêmicos críticos ao governo.
- A juíza Polyanna Martins Alves recusou-se a transformar o tribunal em instrumento de silenciamento, afirmando que autoridades públicas devem esperar aparecer na imprensa — nem sempre de forma favorável.
- A decisão encerra os processos contra os dois críticos e reforça a proteção judicial à liberdade de imprensa no arcabouço democrático brasileiro.
Uma juíza federal em Brasília rejeitou as queixas criminais apresentadas pelo Procurador-Geral Augusto Aras contra o jornalista Milton Blay e o professor de direito Conrado Hubner, em uma decisão que fortalece a liberdade de expressão no Brasil. A juíza Polyanna Martins Alves, da 12ª Vara Federal, concluiu que as críticas publicadas pelos dois não configuravam injúria ou difamação, mas sim opinião legítima sobre um agente público.
Aras havia acionado a Justiça em junho contra Blay, autor de uma coluna no Brasil 247 intitulada 'Aras e Bozo, Gêmeos Siameses', na qual o jornalista argumentava que o Procurador-Geral mantinha um 'silêncio cúmplice' diante de sucessivas violações constitucionais por parte do presidente Bolsonaro — silêncio que Blay atribuía à ambição de Aras por uma vaga no Supremo Tribunal Federal. Meses antes, em maio, Aras também havia processado Hubner por um artigo publicado na Folha de S. Paulo e por postagens em redes sociais com teor semelhante.
No artigo que motivou o processo, Blay traçou um histórico dos procuradores-gerais brasileiros, comparando Aras a Geraldo Brindeiro — apelidado de 'engavetador-geral da República' — e contrastando sua postura com a de Rodrigo Janot, que chegou a denunciar cinco presidentes e ex-presidentes por corrupção. Blay documentou dezenas de episódios em que, segundo ele, Aras deixou de agir diante de censura, ataques a populações indígenas, interferência na Polícia Federal e crimes contra a saúde pública.
A juíza foi direta em sua fundamentação: a crítica a quem está no poder não equivale a degradação ou abuso. Liberdade de expressão e imprensa livre, escreveu ela, são pilares de uma sociedade democrática, aberta e plural. Para Blay e Hubner, a decisão foi uma vindícação. Para o debate público brasileiro, foi um sinal de que os tribunais não se prestarão a silenciar a dissidência.
A federal judge in Brasília has rejected two lawsuits brought by Brazil's Attorney General Augusto Aras against his critics, marking a significant moment for press freedom in the country. Judge Polyanna Martins Alves of the 12th Federal Court dismissed criminal complaints Aras had filed against journalist Milton Blay and law professor Conrado Hubner, both of whom had published articles questioning the Attorney General's record.
Aras had initiated the legal action in June against Blay, who wrote a column titled "Aras and Bozo, Siamese Twins" for the news site Brasil 247. In the piece, Blay argued that while Bolsonaro might be tolerable as a "normal" president, he was not—that the president committed crimes and violated the Constitution regularly, all while Aras maintained what Blay called a "willful silence," apparently motivated by hopes of a future appointment to Brazil's Supreme Court. Months earlier, in May, Aras had also filed a complaint against Hubner, a law professor at the University of São Paulo, over an article published in Folha de S. Paulo titled "Aras is Bolsonaro's Antechamber at the International Criminal Court," along with critical social media posts.
In her ruling, Judge Alves determined that the criticisms offered by both men fell squarely within the bounds of legitimate opinion and did not constitute insult or defamation. She emphasized that free expression and a free press are foundational to a democratic, open, and plural society. Public officials, she wrote, must expect to have their names appear in publications—sometimes favorably, sometimes not. The judge's language was direct: criticism of those in power is not the same as degradation or abuse.
Blay's original article had been sweeping in its indictment. He traced the history of Brazil's attorneys general, beginning with Geraldo Brindeiro, whom he called the "general filing clerk of the Republic" for shelving hundreds of criminal investigations during the Fernando Henrique Cardoso administration. Of 626 criminal inquiries Brindeiro received, he filed away 242 and archived another 217—leaving only 60 denunciations accepted. Blay then moved through Rodrigo Janot, who brought corruption charges against five presidents and former presidents, before arriving at Aras, whom he portrayed as ideologically aligned with Bolsonaro and appointed outside normal procedures through military connections.
The substance of Blay's critique centered on what he saw as Aras's systematic alignment with the executive branch. In his first year, Blay noted, the Attorney General's office sided with the government in more than thirty matters brought before the Supreme Court, opposing the president only once—regarding a labor contract measure. Blay catalogued what he considered flagrant constitutional violations that Aras had failed to address: censorship, support for anti-democratic demonstrations, homophobia, attacks on indigenous populations, threats against prosecutors, criticism of Supreme Court decisions, interference in the Federal Police, defense of dictatorship, and crimes against public health.
Blay was particularly critical of Aras's handling of the pandemic response. He cited a note issued by the Attorney General on January 19 that, in Blay's reading, suggested the possibility of a "state of defense"—a constitutional mechanism allowing the president to restrict civil liberties including freedom of assembly, movement, and communication. Blay interpreted this not as a pandemic measure but as a warning about democratic rupture, and he accused Aras of essentially pointing the way toward authoritarian measures. Seven of the ten deputy attorneys general had themselves criticized the note, asserting that prosecution of crimes—both common and constitutional—fell within the Attorney General's constitutional mandate and required functional independence.
The judge's rejection of Aras's complaints represents a clear statement about the limits of defamation law when applied to public criticism of government officials. It affirms that robust debate about those in power, even harsh debate, remains protected speech. For Blay and Hubner, the ruling vindicated their right to publish their concerns. For Brazil's press and public discourse, it signals that courts will not become instruments for silencing dissent.
Citações Notáveis
The criticisms are situated within the scope of mere expression of opinion and not degradation or insult. Free expression and a free press are pillars of a democratic, open, and plural society, and those who exercise public functions are exposed to publications that cite their names, whether positively or negatively.— Judge Polyanna Martins Alves
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did the Attorney General feel compelled to sue over a column? What was he actually trying to accomplish?
He was trying to use the courts to silence criticism. When you're in power and someone publishes something that damages your reputation, the instinct is to fight back. But the law has limits—you can't just sue anyone who says something unflattering about you, especially if you're a public official.
But didn't Aras have a point? Blay made specific accusations—that Aras was silent on constitutional violations, that he was motivated by ambition for a Supreme Court seat. Aren't those serious claims?
They are serious claims, and that's exactly why they need to be debatable in public. The judge understood that. Blay wasn't making up facts—he was offering an interpretation of Aras's record, backed by examples. That's opinion, and opinion is protected even when it's harsh or damaging.
So the judge is saying public officials just have to accept being attacked?
Not attacked—criticized. There's a difference. The judge said public officials must expect their names to appear in publications, positively or negatively. It's the price of holding power. If you can't tolerate criticism, you shouldn't be in office.
What about Aras's argument that Blay was defaming him, lying about his record?
Blay cited specific numbers, specific decisions, specific moments when Aras sided with Bolsonaro. Those are facts you can debate, but they're not lies. And even if someone interprets those facts differently than Aras does, that interpretation is still protected speech. The law doesn't let you sue someone just because they read your record in a way you don't like.
This seems like it could set a precedent that makes it harder for public officials to defend themselves against false claims.
It does the opposite. It protects the space where citizens and journalists can hold power accountable. If officials could sue every time someone criticized them, that space would shrink. The real precedent here is that courts won't be used as weapons against dissent.