Brazil's Supreme Court divided over mandatory journalism diplomas
Translated from Portuguese, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- Justices Flávio Dino and Alexandre de Moraes of Brazil's Supreme Court are isolated in their push to reinstate mandatory journalism diplomas.
- The majority of their colleagues view revisiting the issue now as premature and potentially opportunistic, especially given a controversial case involving a journalist critical of Dino.
- The debate centers on whether requiring a diploma infringes on freedom of expression, a stance the court previously took 17 years ago.
Brazil's Supreme Court justices Flávio Dino and Alexandre de Moraes find themselves isolated in their attempt to revive the requirement for a journalism diploma to practice the profession. The majority of their colleagues on the court currently do not support revisiting the issue, especially amidst ongoing controversy surrounding a journalist who published critical texts about Dino on his blog.
The debate about resuming the mandatory journalism diploma is not supported by the majority of colleagues at this time.
Three justices, along with contacts for three others, indicated to reporters that discussing the diploma requirement now is hasty and could appear to be a reaction to specific circumstances. This sentiment intensified after Moraes authorized a search and seizure operation against informants of the journalist, Luís Pablo Conceição Almeida. Press organizations reacted strongly, highlighting the constitutional protection of source confidentiality.
the measure is related to the need to investigate illegal monitoring of Dino's security procedures, as the license plates of vehicles used by the minister and the names of the agents accompanying him were published.
The Supreme Court stated the operation was related to investigating alleged illegal monitoring of Dino's security procedures, following the publication of vehicle license plates and escort names. This situation has created a new point of friction within the court, which is already divided by recent scandals. Some justices believe that revising a 17-year-old precedent, which deemed the diploma requirement a violation of free expression, requires careful consideration and should not be tied to a current crisis.
revising a thesis that has been in force for 17 years, that the diploma requirement violates freedom of expression, requires prudence and cannot be linked to an acute crisis moment.
Even justices typically aligned with Dino and Moraes share this cautious view, suggesting the two are alone on this particular issue. The perception of needing caution was further fueled by a Federal Police report unable to confirm if Almeida was paid to publish negative stories about Dino. Tensions were also evident when court president Edson Fachin suggested the investigation against Almeida could be decided by the full court, a move Moraes reportedly opposed, preferring it to be handled by a smaller panel where he holds a majority.
dispensing with the journalism diploma is a 'complicator,' as it extends source confidentiality to 'bloggers' who may have ties to organized crime.
Originally published by Folha de S.Paulo in Portuguese. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.