Brazil’s Congress Blocks Law to Criminalize Fake News: What’s Next?

On May 28, 2024, the Brazilian Congress upheld former President Jair Bolsonaro’s veto against criminalizing fake news.

This controversial decision sparked intense reactions and debates. The vote saw 317 deputies support the veto, while 139 opposed it.

The Chamber of Deputies upheld the veto, so it did not need Senate review. Bolsonaro issued this veto in 2021, making it the oldest item on the agenda.

The proposed legislation aimed to criminalize spreading fake news, with penalties of up to five years in prison.

Bolsonaro removed several provisions from the National Security Law (LSN) that addressed crimes against the democratic state, including those targeting fake news.

The congressional session was highly charged.

After Senate President Rodrigo Pacheco announced the result, members shouted slogans like “Lula ladrão, seu lugar é na prisão” (“Lula thief, your place is in prison”) and “liberdade” (“freedom”).

Opposition leader Flávio Bolsonaro urged those uncomfortable with the veto to avoid challenging it.

He thanked support from evangelical, agribusiness, and public security groups.

The opposition, supported by the Centrão bloc, tried to overturn the government’s stance. This marked a setback for advocates of stricter misinformation controls.

Advocates argued that criminal penalties are essential to combat false information, especially during elections.

Supporters of the veto claimed it protected freedom of expression and prevented undue restrictions on information sharing.

Background

Global “fake news” laws aimed at curbing misinformation have unintentionally threatened journalistic freedom and could impact the crucial 2024 elections.

These laws, intended to protect public discourse, might instead amplify risks, posing a significant challenge to media autonomy.

A study by the Center for News, Technology, and Innovation (CNTI) examined such legislation in 31 countries, from Ethiopia to the Philippines.

Researchers at CNTI, drawing on data from the Center for International Media Assistance, Lexota, and LupaMundi, evaluated 32 statutes.

They discovered that only seven statutes explicitly defined “fake news.”

Furthermore, 14 statutes permitted governmental control over this definition, whereas 18 lacked clear guidance, consequently rendering government oversight by default.