Bolsonaro defense appeals visit ban, citing 'freedom of thought' restriction

Jair Bolsonaro's legal defense has formally appealed a recent decision by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, arguing it unduly restricts the former president's freedom of thought. The appeal, filed Friday, contends that Moraes's order to limit visits to Bolsonaro goes beyond the suspension of political rights and imposes an "effective prohibition of the expression of thought."

The defense team asserts that Moraes has expanded the concept of suspending political rights without a clear legal basis. They specifically challenge the prohibition of visits with "political-electoral purposes," describing the restriction as abstract and lacking defined criteria. In their filing, they argue that the ruling effectively curtails Bolsonaro's ability to express himself, even indirectly, by preventing him from disseminating messages.

“

The challenged decision exceeds the limits set by the legal order itself by converting a restriction on certain means of communication into an effective prohibition of the expression of thought.

Last week, Moraes upheld a 90-day ban on visits from Senator Flávio Bolsonaro, Jair Bolsonaro's son, and extended restrictions to prohibit political contacts until the October elections. The justice also barred the release of new manifestos. While lawyers, doctors, and physical therapists are still permitted, other family members, including sons Carlos and Jair Renan, who previously had visitation rights, are now excluded.

“

The justification is not plausible, as it is absolutely contradictory to the facts.

Moraes cited Bolsonaro's violation of house arrest rules, specifically referencing a letter read by Flávio Bolsonaro, which designated the senator as his "spokesperson." The justice dismissed Bolsonaro's claim of ignorance regarding the letter's public release and its potential violation of house arrest terms, stating the justification was "absolutely contradictory to the facts."

The defense counters that the Constitution distinguishes between political rights and freedom of expression, and that Moraes cannot merge these autonomous constitutional categories to broaden restrictions on fundamental rights that the framers deliberately treated separately.

“

Both because it disciplines for the interpreter to merge autonomous constitutional categories to expand restrictions on fundamental rights that the constituent himself deliberately treated separately.