Noblat criticizes Gilmar Mendes for threatening 'dirty blogs'

247 - Journalist Ricardo Nobtal criticized Supreme Court Justice Gilmar Mendes' attempt to prevent state-owned companies from sponsoring so-called "dirty blogs," known for their government protection and which, according to him, attack institutions. His commentary follows below:

Gilmar Mendes' mistake

Minister Gilmar Mendes informed... Moreno's Radio who will file a lawsuit with the Attorney General's Office requesting information on the legal basis of state-owned companies that use public money to finance blogs that attack institutions.

Gilmar said:

It is unacceptable that these unscrupulous bloggers receive public money to attack institutions and their representatives. In one specific case, I already pointed out to the Minister of Finance that Caixa Econômica Federal, which subsidizes the blog, cannot sponsor attacks on institutions.

And he added:

The right to criticize and express opinions must be respected. But attacks on institutions are intolerable.

Am I attacking the institution called the Presidency of the Republic when I attack the eventual occupant of the presidential chair?

Even if I criticize a Supreme Court Justice, could I be accused of criticizing the Supreme Court itself?

If I say that Congress has become a den of politicians primarily interested in getting rich, should I be punished by having advertisements from state-owned companies that happen to support my blog suppressed?

Veja magazine is full of advertisements from state-owned companies – and it doesn't give the government any slack. Should it lose those ads?

I think the minister is confusing "Cid Sampaio" with "feijoada com paio" (a traditional Brazilian stew with sausage).

Any person or institution that feels offended by a journalist or media outlet has the right to seek justice and request redress.

This is how Gilmar himself acts, a prime target of blogs that are part of the PIG (Party of the Government Press).

Furthermore, it's good not to confuse people with institutions. Institutions are permanent. People come and go.

Institutions themselves are also subject to censorship. Why shouldn't they be?

To advocate for the end of advertising sponsorship for any media outlet is to betray the desire to stifle it.

This does indeed violate freedom of the press.

Note: the owner of this blog does not earn a penny, either directly or indirectly, from the advertisements displayed here.