Internal crisis in Brazil's STF over the 'fake news' investigation.

In recent weeks, tension in Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF) has reached notable levels, particularly regarding Minister Alexandre de Moraes. The growing pressure to close the controversial investigation into 'fake news', which has been ongoing for a considerable period, has sparked intense debate among the court's members, reflecting the complexity of the country's political and judicial situation. Investigation 4781 was established to inquire into the dissemination of false news and slander directed at STF members. However, the prolongation of this process has raised criticisms and questions about its usefulness and the manner in which it is being conducted. Various sectors within the court have begun to consider that the threat that justified the creation of this investigation is no longer as imminent as before, given that virtual activism has decreased in intensity. One of the central points of the accusation against Moraes is that he allegedly used resources from the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) to fuel an investigation in which he himself is the rapporteur. This overlap of functions has been interpreted by some as a possible abuse of power, prompting a faction within the court to advocate for the closure of the investigation. The issue of impartiality and ethics in the exercise of his duties has been a recurring theme in the internal discussions of the STF. On the other hand, the pressure to close these inquiries does not only come from political opponents but has also manifested within the STF itself. Some ministers, such as Gilmar Mendes and Luís Roberto Barroso, have begun to advocate for a solution that, while recognizing the importance of the evidence collected, would allow for the closure of investigations related to 'fake news'. The current context, marked by a shift in the political landscape, has led to the perception that actors who previously challenged the STF more aggressively are now themselves subject to inquiries within the court. An example of this is Carlos Bolsonaro, son of former president Jair Bolsonaro, whose involvement in other cases has weakened the threat narrative that supported the investigation into false news. From the perspective of some magistrates, closing the investigation could be a 'Solomonic' solution that not only cleanses the image of the STF but also limits the radicalization of certain sectors of Congress, which have shown intentions to carry out an impeachment against one of the ministers. This aspect is crucial, as the stability of the STF is seen by many as fundamental to the democratic health of the country. However, the stance of keeping the investigation as a "vaccine" against future threats continues to be defended by some members of the court, led by Moraes. This group argues that, although the current situation is less volatile than in previous years, the changing dynamics of the Brazilian political and social environment cannot be underestimated. Discussions about the future of the 'fake news' investigation also reveal the STF's internal struggle to maintain its relevance and authority in an adverse political climate. The need to find a balance between defending the institution and respecting the rights of the accused is a constant challenge for the magistrates. In this context, it becomes evident that the STF is at a crossroads. The decision to close or keep open the investigation into 'fake news' will not only have repercussions in the judicial sphere but will also influence public perception of the court and its ability to act as a bastion of Brazilian democracy. With time running out and internal debate intensifying, the STF faces the difficult task of balancing its institutional interests with the need for accountability. Attention now turns to how the ministers will navigate this complex situation, which is sure to have a lasting impact on the future of justice in Brazil.