Legal expert argues for an end to the Supreme Court's live broadcasts.
Professor Dalmo Dallari defends the bill proposed by Congressman Vicente Cândido (PT-SP), which prohibits the broadcasting of Supreme Federal Court sessions, as occurred in Criminal Action 470; according to him, it is necessary to end the publicity, the showmanship, and the glamour surrounding the Supreme Court; live broadcasts may even have served as a launching pad for Joaquim Barbosa, who may still be a presidential candidate in 2014.
247 - The jurist Dalmo de Abreu Dallari, a professor at the University of São Paulo, published an important article in the Observatório da Imprensa (Press Observatory) expressing his support for the proposal by Congressman Vicente Cândido (PT-SP), who presented a bill to prohibit the broadcasting of sessions of the Supreme Federal Court. It is worth remembering that the trial of Criminal Action 470 was transformed into a media spectacle and may even have served as a launching pad for Joaquim Barbosa's presidential campaign.
Below is Dallari's article:
Publicity, stardom and glamour
Dalreu de Abreu Dallari
The experience already gained from the live broadcast – or, in media jargon, the real-time transmission – of sessions of the Supreme Federal Court makes it abundantly clear that this practice must be immediately eliminated, for the benefit of balanced, rational, and sober judicial service, inspired by fundamental legal principles and the pursuit of justice, without the harmful interference of emotional attractions and biases, or pressures of any kind, factors that undermine or nullify the independence, serenity, and impartiality of the judge.
Furthermore, suspending the live broadcast of sessions will contribute to preserving the authority of the Supreme Federal Court, freeing it from the primary praise for the emotional and verbal outbursts and excesses of some ministers. The entertainment provided by the live broadcast of Supreme Court sessions equates following the actions of the Supreme Court to the expressions of enthusiasm or displeasure characteristic of the general public's reactions to television programs that seek the emotional involvement of viewers and the acquisition of consumers for certain products, resorting to the picturesque or the promotion of competitions between people or social segments without greater intellectual preparation for the rational and critical evaluation of disputes of any nature.
As has been observed by scholars and experts on the Judiciary, Brazil is the only country in the world where sessions of the Superior Court are broadcast live, providing entertainment to those who watch them—people who, in almost all cases, lack legal knowledge and are unable to understand and evaluate the arguments of the judges and the real meaning of the disagreements that often arise during the trial and which, in numerous cases, have already descended into gross insults and exchanges of utterly disrespectful accusations between the ministers of the Supreme Federal Court.
Harsh dialogue
The practice of these broadcasts began with the approval by the National Congress of Law No. 10.461, of May 17, 2002, which introduced a provision in Law No. 8.977, of January 6, 1995, which deals with cable TV service. An innovation was then added, which became item "h" of article 23, establishing that there will be "a channel reserved for the Supreme Federal Court, for the dissemination of acts of the Judiciary and essential services to Justice".
The use of this communication vehicle gained enormous emphasis, with a complete distortion of the idea of service, when Minister Gilmar Mendes assumed the presidency of the Supreme Court, leading the Supreme Court from 2008 to 2010. It suffices to point out that in the STF's budget for 2010, 59 million reais were allocated to "Social Communications," an amount equivalent to 11% of the Supreme Court's total budget. This allocation exceeded the annual budget of the Superior Electoral Court by almost five times – and this in an election year in Brazil, with nationwide elections.
Thus begins a truly degrading phase for the image of the country's highest court, with the most blatant exhibitionism of some ministers and the live broadcast of exchanges of insults and crude accusations between members of the Supreme Court. For example, in April 2010, an extremely harsh dialogue took place between ministers Gilmar Mendes and Joaquim Barbosa. In the debate broadcast throughout Brazil, the latter accused Gilmar Mendes of being a show-off, a practitioner of diva-like behavior, saying, verbatim: "Your Excellency is daily in the media, directing offensive words at the other ministers and destroying the credibility of the Brazilian Judiciary."
Two years later, it fell to Minister Joaquim Barbosa to preside over the Supreme Federal Court, and what has been observed since then is that the self-promotion and the fascination with prestige among television viewers, paths he had previously condemned, continued to mark the performance of the head of the Supreme Court and to be the dominant theme in the use of the television channel reserved for the Supreme Court.
Elevated language
For all these reasons, Bill No. 7.004 of 2013, proposed by Representative Vicente Cândido (PT-SP), deserves the strongest support. According to this bill, the aforementioned item “h” of article 23 of Law No. 8.977 will have the following wording: “A channel reserved for the Supreme Federal Court for the dissemination of the acts of the Judiciary and its work, without live transmission and without editing of sound images of its sessions and those of the other Superior Courts”.
The project could be more forceful, stating explicitly: “Live broadcasting is prohibited,” but that is a minor detail. What is of fundamental importance is the elimination of the degrading and demoralizing live broadcasts of the sessions of the Supreme Federal Court, restoring to the highest Brazilian court an attitude of sobriety and mutual respect among its members, without the imbalances encouraged by exhibitionism. And this will not cause the slightest harm to the practice of publicity inherent to the Democratic Rule of Law, which must be ethical, in elevated and respectful language, transmitting the essentials of the decisions and arguments of the ministers, including dissenting opinions, so that the interests of Justice prevail.
***
Dalmo de Abreu Dallari is a jurist and professor emeritus at the Faculty of Law of the University of São Paulo.