We have the right to interview Cabral and even Satan.

The decision to prohibit "Folha" and "O Globo" from interviewing former governor Sergio Cabral, imprisoned in Rio de Janeiro, made by Judge Abel Gomes of the Federal Regional Court of Rio de Janeiro and Judge Marcelo Bretas, the same judge who offered popcorn to Sergio Moro at the gala screening of "The Law is for Everyone," violates not only Cabral's right to freedom of expression but also freedom of the press, both guaranteed by the current constitution.

In plain English, it's censorship, which was abolished after the overthrow of the military regime in 1985.

If the law applies to everyone, it should apply to him too. I myself, as well as several other journalists, have even interviewed murderers in prison.

The justification put forth by Abel Gomes appears to have been drawn from "The Trial" by Franz Kafka:

"It is the judge's duty, given the patient's personal circumstances and conditions, to ensure their protection against any form of sensationalism, which, in this context, cannot be ruled out."

The cynicism is overwhelming. The Justice system never protected Cabral from sensationalism; quite the contrary, it allowed situations and contexts to leak to the press, transforming Cabral into a monster far more terrifying than the Abominable Snowman. Therefore, the argument is false.

Even more serious is his statement that an interview in which the reporter asks questions and the interviewee answers could be "a form of sensationalism."

Either he doesn't know what an interview is, or he doesn't know what sensationalism is.

Please note: he says that "it is not excluded that it may occur," thus acting more as a seer than as a magistrate.

Marcelo Bretas goes even further. He says that "there is no public interest in granting an interview to the detainee (Cabral)," without ever having consulted the public about it, as if it were up to him to decide what is or is not in the public interest. And he continues:

"What is evident, in reality, is the press's interest in obtaining from the defendant the exclusive disclosure of some new information, which is why the requests must be denied."

It is evident that the role of a journalist is always to try to reveal new information, preferably exclusively, which should be applauded by an impartial judge, because the more information he has, the more transparent and impartial the judgment will be. By denying Cabral the right to reply, the magistrates allow speculation that he could reveal facts that are not in their interest.

The authoritarian escalation of judges since Moro's elevation to "national hero" needs to be stopped before it's too late. We journalists cannot remain silent. We have the right and even the duty to interview whomever we want, even Satan.