Lula loses legal action against journalist and YouTuber who called him a ‘devil’

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) lost a case in the Court of Justice of the Federal District and Territories (TJDF) against journalist and YouTuber Luís Ernesto Lacombe, who called the PT member a “devil”, “devil”, “mean-spirited” and “a beast in the square”. According to the decision of judge Paulo Cerqueira Campos, the communicator used “freedom of expression” when addressing the president in these terms.

Lula can still appeal, but he will have to pay R$9,395 in procedural costs and legal fees, as mentioned in the decision handed down on January 19th.

The case occurred on November 2, 2023, when Lacombe published a video on YouTube for his newspaper column People’s Gazette.

Also read

Quaest tests Lula x Flávio Bolsonaro under the impact of the Master case and political dispute

Genial/Quaest survey will be released on Wednesday (11) and will measure Lula, Flávio Bolsonaro and other presidential candidates

Lula: There are those who do politics online; whoever governs shows results

The statement was made by the PT member alongside the mayor of Rio de Janeiro and pre-candidate for the State government, Eduardo Paes (PSD

“Lula is not exactly stupid, he doesn’t bet on wrong, absurd ideas, thinking that they might work. He doesn’t have good intentions and makes mistakes. He’s really demonic, he seeks misfortune, consciously. Lula is the bad guy, the devil, the devil, the cunning one, Lula is the beast squared,” he said in the video.

Lula’s defense claimed that the president was offended in the video and that freedom of expression is not a justification for inciting violence, hatred and intolerance. “The defendant acted freely and consciously with the aim of offending the honor of the president,” he stated.

Lawyers Diogo Flores dos Santos and Flávio Medeiros, from the Attorney General’s Office (AGU), said that “maintaining the video has the harmful effect of perpetuating an attack on the dignity and honor of the President of the Republic, with repercussions on his functional actions as head of State and Government”.

“In this order of ideas, I am firm that the speech used by the defendant falls within the scope of animus narrandi (intention to report facts) and animus critiquendi (intention to criticize), and the merely opinionated character of the speech must prevail, in the regular exercise of freedom of expression and freedom of the press”, wrote the judge.