Having verified the mere regular exercise of the free expression of thought, the right to criticize and the full freedom of the press, the 3rd Civil Court of the Pinheiros Forum, in São Paulo, denied compensation to the former volleyball player and political commentator Ana Paula Henkel for statements by former soccer player and sports commentator Walter Casagrande Júnior.
Ana Paula — who works on the radio Young pan and subscribe to a column in the magazine West – demanded compensation of R$ 50 thousand from Casagrande and the Globe (where the commentator worked), after being called “a defender of the violent, the undemocrats, the guns and everything that is bad in our society”.
In February of last year, the former athlete, a supporter of President Jair Bolsonaro, came out in defense of federal deputy Daniel Silveira, who had been arrested for attacking democratic institutions.
Then, Casagrande — who has a position against the Bolsonaro government — published a text on his old blog on the portal. GE with criticism of Ana Paula.
The former player said that the commentator spreads fake news and referred to her as “an unpalatable, boastful, arrogant person, a defender of weapons, who disguised herself as a volleyball player, capable of defending even this infamous deputy arrested for being violent and scammer”.
In court, Ana Paula alleged that the text had offended and tarnished her “good name” and exceeded freedom of expression, with the aim of “murdering” her reputation. In another lawsuit, the former player obtained the right of reply, which was published in text form on the website of the GE.
However, judge Rosana Moreno Santiso did not find “abuse of freedom of expression and information”. According to her, the commentator is a public figure whose views are wide-ranging and subject to criticism.
“The condition of public persons, whether state agents or notorious figures, softens the limitations of personality rights, overlapping freedom of information and, specifically, the right to criticism, legitimized by social interest”, explained the magistrate.
Rosana also recalled that the right of reply does not necessarily mean moral damage and may be sufficient in certain circumstances.
For her, Casagrande only “expressed his deep political divergence” in relation to public demonstrations, without even mentioning any matter of the author’s private life.
In the judge’s view, Ana Paula herself would have come closer to taking the debate to personal attacks. This because. after the publication of the text, the former player countered the commentator on Twitter: “I am the least of your problems. […] Tidy up your room first, which has been a real mess for many years.”
Finally, there would be no sign of damage to the former athlete’s reputation, as she continued to work as a commentator on the same station and maintained a considerable number of followers on social networks.
Last year, Justice had already denied a request for a response by Ana Paula against presenter and former football player Neto, who defended Casagrande on TV.
Click here to read the decision