A direct challenge to who controls internet law in Brazil
Na véspera do Dia da Independência do Brasil, o presidente Jair Bolsonaro assinou um decreto que buscava redefinir os limites da moderação de conteúdo nas redes sociais — um gesto que três partidos de oposição interpretaram não como proteção à liberdade de expressão, mas como uma tentativa de subverter a vontade do Congresso e blindar a desinformação. O Supremo Tribunal Federal agora carrega o peso de decidir se o poder executivo pode, por ato unilateral, reescrever o que a sociedade brasileira construiu coletivamente em 2014. A questão vai além do decreto: trata-se de saber quem, afinal, governa o espaço digital brasileiro.
- Bolsonaro assinou a Medida Provisória 1.068/2021 na véspera de manifestações do Dia da Independência, num momento de polarização extrema — o timing não foi acidental.
- O decreto proíbe plataformas de remover conteúdos sem 'justa causa', colidindo frontalmente com o Marco Civil da Internet, aprovado pelo Congresso após amplo debate nacional em 2014.
- PT, Solidariedade e PSB ingressaram com três ações diretas de inconstitucionalidade em menos de 24 horas, pedindo suspensão imediata da medida e alertando para o risco de proteção institucional à desinformação e ao discurso de ódio.
- O Solidariedade foi além: argumentou que o decreto nem sequer preenche os requisitos constitucionais de urgência e relevância exigidos para a edição de medidas provisórias.
- O STF agora decide se o executivo pode sobrepor-se ao legislativo na regulação da internet — e o resultado moldará tanto a moderação de conteúdo quanto o equilíbrio de poderes no Brasil digital.
Na manhã de 7 de setembro de 2021, enquanto o Brasil se dividia entre manifestações pró e contra o governo nas ruas, três partidos políticos corriam ao Supremo Tribunal Federal para bloquear um decreto presidencial assinado na véspera. O PT e o Solidariedade protocolaram suas ações na terça-feira; o PSB havia se antecipado na noite anterior. Todos pediam a suspensão imediata da Medida Provisória 1.068/2021, editada por Jair Bolsonaro.
O decreto tinha um objetivo claro: impedir que plataformas de redes sociais removessem publicações sem o que chamava de 'justa causa'. O problema, segundo os partidos, era que essa lógica contrariava diretamente o Marco Civil da Internet — a lei aprovada pelo Congresso em 2014 após extenso debate público, que estabeleceu as bases dos direitos digitais no Brasil.
Os argumentos jurídicos convergiam num ponto central: Bolsonaro havia desrespeitado a vontade do Parlamento. O PT denunciou que o decreto facilitaria a circulação de desinformação e discurso de ódio, fenômenos que já eram objeto de investigação no próprio STF e que representavam, na visão do partido, uma ameaça concreta à democracia brasileira. O Solidariedade, por sua vez, questionou a própria legitimidade formal do ato: não havia, argumentou, urgência ou relevância real que justificasse o uso de medida provisória para alterar uma lei tão estrutural.
Não era a primeira vez que Bolsonaro tentava esse caminho. Meses antes, em maio, uma minuta com objetivos idênticos havia circulado nos bastidores do governo — e especialistas jurídicos já haviam concluído que a proposta era ilegal. As plataformas, enquanto isso, continuavam removendo conteúdos que violavam suas próprias políticas, criando uma tensão prática que o presidente buscava resolver pela via executiva.
Com três ações no STF, o tribunal se via diante de uma decisão que transcendia o decreto em si: tratava-se de definir se o executivo pode, por ato unilateral, reconfigurar o que o legislativo construiu — e quem, em última instância, tem autoridade sobre a governança da internet no Brasil.
Three political parties moved simultaneously to block a presidential decree that would restrict how social media platforms remove content from their networks. The Workers' Party and the Solidarity party filed constitutional challenges on Tuesday, September 7th, 2021, against Provisional Measure 1.068/2021, issued by President Jair Bolsonaro. The Brazilian Socialist Party had already filed its own suit the night before. All three parties sought immediate suspension of the measure, arguing it violated Brazil's foundational internet law.
The timing was deliberate. Bolsonaro signed the decree on Monday, September 6th—the eve of Brazil's Independence Day—a date that drew competing demonstrations across the country for and against his government. The measure itself was straightforward in its intent: it would prevent social media platforms from removing posts without what the decree termed "just cause." This directly contradicted the 2014 Marco Civil da Internet, the internet civil rights framework that Congress had approved after extensive national debate.
The parties' legal arguments converged on a central claim: Bolsonaro had subverted the will of the legislature. The Workers' Party petition stated plainly that the decree violated the principle against regression, freedom of expression, and free enterprise by making it harder for platforms to remove posts containing misinformation or hate speech. The party noted that disinformation campaigns had become a direct threat to Brazilian democracy itself and were already the subject of an active investigation at the Supreme Court. The Solidarity party took a different angle, arguing that Bolsonaro had failed to meet the constitutional threshold required to issue a provisional measure at all—that there was no genuine urgency or relevance justifying such a dramatic alteration to internet law.
Paulo Pereira da Silva, the national president of Solidarity and a federal deputy from São Paulo, was blunt in his assessment. He called the measure unconstitutional and inconvenient, lacking any legitimate claim to urgency or relevance. He framed it as disrespect toward Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Brazilian people. Solidarity's position went further: the decree, they argued, would effectively protect and enable criminal acts to be committed freely online.
This was not Bolsonaro's first attempt at the same goal. In May, months before the September decree, the president had circulated a draft executive order with identical aims—to reshape the Marco Civil da Internet to prevent content removal. Legal experts consulted at the time had concluded the draft was illegal and violated the existing framework. Meanwhile, the platforms themselves had been consistently removing politically charged content that violated their own community standards, creating a practical tension that Bolsonaro sought to resolve through executive action.
The Supreme Court now faced three separate constitutional suits, all seeking the same immediate relief: suspension of the measure pending full review. The court would have to decide whether the decree met the constitutional requirements of urgency and relevance, and whether it could legally override a statute that Congress had deliberately crafted seven years earlier. The outcome would shape not only how Brazilian platforms moderate content but also the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches over internet governance.
Citações Notáveis
This provisional measure is unconstitutional and deeply inconvenient. It lacks the urgency and relevance needed to justify it. It's a disrespect toward Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Brazilian people.— Paulo Pereira da Silva, national president of Solidarity party
The measure violates the principle against regression, freedom of expression, and free enterprise by making it harder to remove posts containing misinformation or hate speech.— Workers' Party petition to the Supreme Court
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did Bolsonaro wait until the day before Independence Day to issue this decree?
The timing wasn't accidental. Independence Day draws massive protests—both for and against him. Issuing it then, in the noise and fervor, made it harder to organize immediate opposition. It also signaled something: he was acting in the moment of popular mobilization, not in quiet deliberation.
The parties say he violated the 2014 law. Why couldn't he just change it through Congress?
He could have, but Congress would have debated it, amended it, possibly rejected it. A provisional measure bypasses that friction. It takes effect immediately while Congress decides whether to approve it. But that power is supposed to be used only for genuine emergencies.
What's the real disagreement here—is it about free speech or about who gets to decide?
Both. The parties argue the decree protects misinformation and hate speech under the guise of free expression. But underneath that is a structural question: can the president unilaterally rewrite internet law that Congress spent months deliberating over?
The platforms are already removing content anyway, right?
Exactly. They're enforcing their own policies, which often align with the 2014 framework. Bolsonaro's decree would force them to keep content up even when it violates their own rules. It's not about protecting speech—it's about preventing platforms from moderating.
What happens now?
The Supreme Court decides whether to suspend the measure while it reviews the constitutional challenges. If they do, the decree stops working immediately. If they don't, it stays in effect while the case proceeds—which could take months or years.