Globo's AI-5

Not content with self-censoring the content that its contracted journalists or collaborators produce daily for its newspapers, magazines, websites, radio stations, and TV channels spread across the web and throughout Brazil, Globo has decided to resurrect the AI-5 (Institutional Act No. 5) and prohibit them from expressing opinions on social media through a decree that it unilaterally issued and that subjects those who disobey it to dismissal.

As we know, but Globo prefers to ignore, freedom of expression is guaranteed by article 5 of the federal constitution, an entrenched clause that cannot be revoked, but which it revoked internally, implementing censorship in democratic times.

The objective is clear: to block opinions that differ from those expressed in its editorial line, imposing a single voice – that of its owners – under the pretext of preserving the "impartiality" and "reputation" of the journalists and the company.

I don't know how an organization that has been disproportionately attacking Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva compared to other Brazilian politicians since 1989, and that has been trying to impose political and economic guidelines on the country since the redemocratization as if it were a political party and not a journalistic company, while maintaining a monopoly on information in defiance of the law, can talk about preserving any reputation.

The decision is not surprising, since Globo supported and defended the AI-5 decree of the military dictatorship, issued on December 13, 1968, which mandated the implementation of journalistic and artistic censorship in Brazil, as well as the closure of political parties and the removal of opponents of the regime.

In one of the most humiliating aspects of Globo's Institutional Act, the text suggests that, when in doubt about whether or not to publish something on social media, employees should consult their superiors, as if they were not capable of making decisions for themselves.

It mandates that supervisors bring cases of disobedience to the organization's management for summary judgment.

The precautions are not limited to the political field. There is also an explicit recommendation for employees not to point out flaws in products or criticize companies, even if they have been harmed by them.

The veto is easy to understand. Any product or company has been, is, or could be an advertiser for some Globo company.

Like all acts of censorship, the decree reveals the weaknesses of those who impose it. Globo's fear of social media seems to be greater than vain philosophy supposes, as we saw in the William Waack and Chico Pinheiro cases.

If they were harmless, they wouldn't need to be so closely monitored.

The other observation is that Globo doesn't know how to deal with dissenting opinions, preferring censorship to debate, and all its editorials in defense of democracy are worthless.

If another AI-5 comes along, there's no doubt Globo will support it again.