There is a lack of clarity about what is incitement against democracy and what is just criticism of STF ministers, experts tell CNN

In this Sunday’s edition of WW Especial (8), experts Fernando Schüler, political scientist and professor at Insper, Rafael Mafei, professor of Law at USP and ESPM, and Francisco Brito Cruz, executive director and co-founder of InternetLab, analyzed the recent clashes between businessman Elon Musk and Minister of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) Alexandre de Moraes.

In the trio’s assessment, there is a lack of clarity in the decisions taken by the Supreme Court minister in recent months. Two weeks ago, Moraes ordered the blocking of X (formerly Twitter) in Brazil after the social media platform failed to comply with the order to appoint a legal representative of the company in the country.

Given the absence of an X representative in Brazil, Moraes ordered the accounts of the company Starlink, also owned by Elon Musk, to be blocked as a way of guaranteeing the payment of fines imposed by the STF on the social network.

Fernando Schüler questioned the need for these measures taken by Moraes.

“Was it necessary, to protect democracy, to use instruments foreign to democracy itself? Could it be that the rule of law in Brazil did not have strong enough instruments to protect Brazilian democracy?” asked the political scientist who, at another point, spoke about the

For Francisco Brito Cruz, the lack of transparency in the investigations conducted by Moraes at the Supreme Court prevents more qualified decision-making.

“The fact that we do not have transparency in the investigations means that we have very little context. We don’t know, for example, if the ministers (of the STF) were receiving death threats”, said the executive director and co-founder of InternetLab.

“(The transparency of the investigations) will allow us to make more informed decisions to criticize a decision or not”, he added.

According to Rafael Mafei, it is necessary to establish clear criteria to define what is incitement against democracy and what would simply be criticism of Supreme Court ministers.

“We need to be clear about what is incitement and what is a more acidic protest. I think our role in law is to be able to tell people clearly what can and cannot be done. And, in the most difficult situations, whoever is making decisions has a huge burden of providing clear criteria that say where the right to criticism goes and how far criminal incitement goes”, argued the Law professor at USP and ESPM.