Tension in the STF: Debate on the future of the "fake news" inquiry

In recent days, an internal discussion has begun to take shape within the Supreme Federal Court (STF) that could mark a significant shift in the relationship between the branches of government in Brazil. The possibility of closing the "fake news" inquiry, established to investigate threats and defamation campaigns against members of the Court, has become a hot topic among the justices. This initiative, although still in its early stages and far from consensus, aims to weaken the movement advocating for the impeachment of Minister Alexandre de Moraes while simultaneously sending a signal of détente to the National Congress. Inquiry 4781, which has been at the center of the controversy, was created by the STF to address the proliferation of fake news and attacks on its integrity. Since its establishment, the process has been subject to continuous extensions, justified by a climate of constant threat toward the Court. This environment has even led to cases of censorship, such as that suffered by the magazine Crusoé, which was blocked after publishing information related to emails from Marcelo Odebrecht that involved Minister Dias Toffoli. Proponents of closing the inquiry argue that the current situation reveals a decrease in the violence of virtual discourse and that many of those who once attacked the STF are now under investigation themselves within the same court. A notable example of this is Carlos Bolsonaro, who has been the subject of inquiries stemming from the same allegations that initially fueled the "fake news" inquiry. Thus, some justices believe that maintaining these investigations no longer holds the utility it was initially attributed. However, not everyone in the STF agrees with this view. A faction, led by Moraes and Minister Gilmar Mendes, argues that keeping the inquiry active serves as a deterrent against future attacks. They believe that closing the investigations could open the door to an increase in verbal and media assaults against the Court, and therefore vigilance must persist. It is interesting to note that, despite the resistance to closing the inquiry, even those who advocate for its continuation have begun to acknowledge that, eventually, this process must come to an end. This shift in stance indicates a possible evolution in the perception of the political context in which the STF operates, characterized by constant tensions with the Legislative and Executive branches. Minister Moraes's statements during the recent STF session are revealing regarding this dilemma. He asserted that the work done so far has remained within the margins of institutional legality, suggesting that the procedures of the inquiry have not compromised the principles of due process. However, the fear that any questioning of Moraes's impartiality could lead to the annulment of the collected evidence complicates the situation even further. From the Palácio do Planalto and the congressional benches, closing the inquiry is seen as an opportunity to mitigate the tension that has characterized relations between the Judiciary and the Legislative. The search for a balance between these powers is crucial for the political stability of the country, and the decision to close or maintain the "fake news" inquiry could have profound repercussions for the future of this relationship. The possibility of closure also reflects a transition in public perception regarding the role of the STF in defending democracy and legislation in Brazil. As power dynamics shift, it is vital for the STF to consider how its decisions impact not only its own functioning but also the trust that citizens have in their institutions. The discussion about the future of the "fake news" inquiry is more than just a legal debate; it represents a crucial moment for Brazilian democracy. The manner in which the STF handles this situation could set a precedent for the relationship between the branches of government and the respect for freedom of expression, as well as for the fight against misinformation in the current political environment. Undoubtedly, the next steps taken by the court will be closely watched not only by the political class but also by society as a whole.