Freedom of Speech for Me. Freedom Under Investigation for You.
Flávio Bolsonaro's campaign asks the TSE to remove 221 posts, suspend 32 profiles and impose preventive restrictions on electoral debate. The freedom that Bolsonarism claims as a universal principle seems to have found a rather convenient exception: the speech of its opponents.
Lawfare4All Editorial ·
There is something extraordinarily Brazilian about the ability of certain political actors to denounce censorship while carefully drawing up a list of people they would like to see prevented from speaking.
Flávio Bolsonaro has just offered a particularly eloquent contribution to that tradition.
The candidate who systematically accuses the courts of persecuting freedom of expression has turned to the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) to request measures against an extensive network of profiles critical of his candidacy. This is not merely a request to take down a specific publication proven to be unlawful. The initiative includes the temporary suspension of accounts, the removal of hundreds of posts and restrictions on the future circulation of certain political content.
Freedom of expression remains sacred, naturally. The problem seems to begin the moment someone decides to exercise it against Flávio Bolsonaro.
The menu of supervised freedom
According to information reported by CNN Brasil, the action filed on October 8 asks for the removal of 221 Instagram posts, the temporary suspension of 32 profiles linked to Lula's political camp and the imposition of restrictions on publishing content related to the topics challenged by the campaign. The requested suspension would last until October 26, one day after the presidential runoff.
The petition also requests the preservation of digital data, the identification of those responsible for anonymous profiles and the imposition of fines that could reach R$ 100,000 per hour of non-compliance for providers and R$ 50,000 per post for the other recipients of the orders.
And there is more. The same judicial offensive asks for the annulment of the registration or certification of the Lula-Alckmin ticket and for both to be declared ineligible for eight years.
The scale of the request deserves attention. We are not dealing with a simple complaint about an offensive meme or a demonstrably fabricated news story. This is an attempt at judicial intervention over a significant part of the circulation of political information in the final stretch of a presidential election.
Agência Brasil identified among the targets posts by Workers' Party (PT) lawmakers, the artists' collective 342 Artes, the Central Única dos Trabalhadores (CUT) labor federation, Mídia Ninja and other supporters of the rival candidacy.
It is a list that cuts across institutional politics, union organizing, cultural production and independent media.
Curiously, precisely the spaces where a democracy should allow the broadest expression of disagreement.
The crime of interpreting the candidate
Perhaps the most revealing element lies in how the challenged content was classified.
According to the petition data presented by CNN, the campaign examined 2,856 posts from 146 profiles, published between October 5 and 7. From that universe, it initially selected 218 posts for removal: 24 classified as false and another 194 as decontextualized without confirmation. It added three earlier posts, reaching a total of 221.
Therefore, according to the classification presented in the report, 196 of the 221 challenged posts do not appear in the category of falsehood proper, but in that of decontextualization without confirmation.
This does not mean they are automatically lawful. It does mean, however, that the campaign seeks sweeping restrictive measures over a set of statements whose classification depends, to a large extent, on disputes of context and interpretation.
One of the examples reported involves statements by Flávio Bolsonaro himself about his intention to use a possible parliamentary majority to amend the Constitution. Opposing profiles interpreted the remark as a sign of a possible democratic rupture, using expressions such as coup and dictatorship.
The campaign regards this circulation as a coordinated disinformation operation.
But there is a question that precedes any judicial decision: does politically interpreting a candidate's statement, even in a harsh, exaggerated or unfavorable way, necessarily constitute fake news?
If a candidate makes a public statement, may his opponents question his intentions? May they relate it to his political record? May they warn the electorate about what they consider its possible consequences?
Or will it be necessary to request judicial authorization to correctly interpret Flávio Bolsonaro's thinking?
Democracy does not require everyone to agree on the meaning of a candidate's statements. It requires precisely that they be able to disagree.
The new modality: censorship without censorship
The campaign expressly rejects the accusation of censorship. In a statement reproduced by Agência Brasil, it argues that the requested measures do not seek to prevent opinions in advance and that the restrictions would be limited to narratives deemed false or decontextualized.
It is a defense that must be recorded. Going to court against content that is actually unlawful is the right of any candidate, including Flávio Bolsonaro.
The problem lies in the scope of the measures requested.
The individualized removal of a publication proven to be illegal is legally different from the complete suspension of a profile or the imposition of preventive restrictions on the publication of new statements on certain subjects.
The first measure may repair a concrete violation. The others, depending on their scope and grounds, may prevent in advance the exercise of rights by people and organizations that have not yet even produced the future content covered by the restriction.
The mechanism is especially worrying during an electoral campaign, a period in which political communication is not an ancillary activity but a condition of the democratic process itself.
An account suspended until after the vote does not recover, the next day, the opportunity to take part in the debate that has ended.
Time, too, can function as an instrument of censorship.
Electoral Justice as editor of public debate
Journalist Daniela Lima, of UOL, revealed that legal scholars consulted about the action identified a problem that goes beyond the conventional discussion about fake news: the possibility of turning the Electoral Justice into a body exercising guardianship over political debate.
The risk is evident.
If a candidate can submit to prior judicial review the legitimacy of the interpretations produced by his opponents, the controversy ceases to be resolved primarily in the public sphere and comes to depend on the authorization of a state authority.
Voters no longer receive merely competing arguments. They receive whatever survived the judicial filter.
This does not mean defending impunity for slander, fraud, deliberate manipulation, irregular propaganda or demonstrably unlawful campaigns. It means recognizing that intervention in electoral communication must be exceptional, well-founded, proportionate and directed at conduct that has actually been demonstrated.
There is a fundamental difference between protecting the election against fraud and protecting a candidate against unfavorable interpretations.
Confusing these two activities means granting the State a power that no democracy should concede lightly: that of preventively arbitrating the limits of political disagreement.
Justice Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva, the rapporteur of the action, requested clarifications and the individualization of the irregularities attributed to those under investigation before ruling on the requests. That requirement reflects precisely the need to distinguish generic allegations from concretely demonstrated conduct.
Granting the restrictions is not automatic, nor does the filing of the action prove the accusations made by the campaign.
Lawfare for all. Freedom for some.
The episode offers a particularly instructive example of how the judicialization of politics can produce results contrary to the principles its own protagonists claim to defend.
For years, Bolsonarism turned freedom of expression into one of its main political banners. Judicial decisions against its members were frequently presented as manifestations of authoritarianism, persecution and censorship.
Now, faced with an opposing digital mobilization, the same political current turns to the judicial apparatus to request the suspension of profiles, the removal of content and preventive restrictions on political expression.
The contradiction does not lie in seeking the Judiciary. It lies in claiming different standards for equivalent situations, depending on the political identity of who speaks and who considers himself offended.
This is also one of the best-known mechanisms of lawfare: the strategic use of legal instruments as part of the struggle for power, with the potential to shift political competition into institutional arenas capable of altering the conditions under which it takes place.
It is not necessary to presume the illegality of the action or to anticipate the TSE's decision to recognize the risk. It is enough to examine the breadth of the requests and their possible effects on political participation.
Democracy cannot depend on the goodwill of candidates to tolerate criticism, nor on the convenience of judicial authorities to allow it to circulate.
The standard must apply equally to Flávio Bolsonaro, Lula, their supporters and their opponents.
Otherwise, freedom of expression ceases to be a constitutional guarantee and becomes a selective concession, administered according to electoral circumstances.
And so we arrive at Brazil's paradox of October 2026: in the name of fighting censorship, one claims the power to take opponents out of circulation; in defense of democracy, one asks the courts to determine in advance which political interpretations may reach the voter.
Freedom remains untouchable in speech.
In practice, all it takes is to fill out the petition, attach the list of inconvenient people and await the court's decision.
Freedom of speech for me. Freedom under investigation for you.
Lawfare is for everyone. Justice is not.
Sources and references
CNN Brasil: Flávio asks TSE to remove 221 posts from pro-Lula profiles over fake news (in Portuguese).
https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/eleicoes/flavio-pede-ao-tse-remocao-de-221-posts-de-perfis-pro-lula-por-fake-news/
Agência Brasil: Flávio's campaign takes artists' and lawmakers' posts to the TSE (in Portuguese).
https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/justica/noticia/2026-10/campanha-de-flavio-aciona-tse-contra-posts-de-artistas-e-deputados
UOL: Daniela Lima: For legal scholars, Flávio's thesis is not about fake news but about guardianship over public debate (in Portuguese).
https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/ultimas-noticias/2026/10/14/dani-lima-dani-lima-para-juristas-tese-de-flavio-nao-trata-de-fake-news-mas-de-tutela-sobre-o-debate-publico.ghtm
Superior Electoral Court (TSE): TSE orders clarifications before ruling on Flávio's requests against Lula and Janones (in Portuguese).
https://www.tse.jus.br/comunicacao/noticias/2026/Outubro/tse-determina-esclarecimentos-antes-de-analisar-pedidos-de-flavio-contra-lula-e-janones