THE MISCONCEPTION THAT LEADS TO CENSORSHIP

 

Social Networks Were Never Information Platforms, but Platforms of Expression 

Censorship Enforcer on Social Media – (figure afpp-copilot)

  By Antonio Fernando Pinheiro Pedro 

“Freedom is the expression of the soul and the oxygen of democracy.”

Introduction

In May 2020, Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court (STF) issued arrest warrants against bloggers and journalists under the vague pretext of fighting “fake news,” “hate speech,” and “disinformation.” In truth, the move was aimed at shielding the Court from scrutiny while launching a campaign to “moderate” the 2020 and 2022 electoral processes.

Criticized by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office for infringing on constitutional freedoms, the decision revealed a broader movement toward regulating social media under questionable premises. At the heart of this push lies a strategic confusion: mixing the right to free expression with the duty of journalistic communication.

This article analyzes this distortion and proposes a solution already emerging within the platforms themselves—far more democratic than the arbitrary censorship imposed by a judiciary that now emulates a Chinese-style, progressive-globalist regime.

Ignorance and Fear at the Root

Brazil’s tradition of critical journalism—from Gregório de Matos to Carlos Lacerda—has always played a key role in institutional shifts. But the advent of digital communication disrupted this framework, allowing ordinary citizens to bypass editorial filters and express themselves freely online.

Social media took this even further: it brought opinion, belief, and spontaneous commentary into the public square—on a mass scale. This shift unnerved the establishment, still unprepared to deal with such asymmetry between institutional control and popular voice.

Attempts to regulate this phenomenon under pretexts like “protecting the public” are more akin to bringing the State into private homes—a form of institutionalized ignorance that only deepens the divide between government and citizen.

Types of Social Media Platforms

• Intercommunication Platforms: Focused on real-time interactions between individuals or closed groups (e.g., WhatsApp, Microsoft Teams, Zoom).

• Expression Platforms: Created for public dissemination of ideas and opinions through multimedia (e.g., X, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook).

Neither platform category is designed with a duty to verify facts, and both serve to encourage conversation, criticism, and creativity.

Freedom of Expression vs. Duty to Inform

• Expression is a personal right, exercised without prior censorship, subject only to legal limits in cases of real harm.

• Communication, especially journalistic communication, carries a public duty to inform with accuracy, impartiality, and factual verification.

The two do intersect, but should never be conflated. To express is not to report—and vice versa.

Freedom of Expression vs. Freedom of the Press

While freedom of expression is individual, press freedom protects institutional communication, operating under editorial guidelines. One functions on subjectivity; the other, ideally, on verification and neutrality.

Expression vs. Responsible Communication

Expression is limitless, instinctive, and often emotional. Responsible communication requires structure, accountability, and method.

In journalism, roles are defined—reporters gather, editors select, columnists opine—all under clear editorial identities. This transparency allows readers to trust what’s factual and recognize what is opinion.

Constitutional Guarantees in Brazil

The 1988 Constitution enshrines freedom of expression in Article 5, ensuring the inviolability of thought, communication, privacy, belief, and assembly. Notable clauses include:

• V: Freedom of thought without anonymity

• IX: Freedom of intellectual, artistic, scientific, and communication activities

• XII: Confidentiality of correspondence and telecommunication

• XVI & XVII: Rights to peaceful assembly and lawful association

This structure already regulates abuses and guarantees rights—contrary to what many claim.

On Controversial Ideas

Doubting electronic voting systems or believing in extraterrestrial life may spark debate—but these are protected expressions. The STJ itself ruled that critiques of voting machines cannot be suppressed via civil action.

Even fringe beliefs, as long as they do not incite harm, are within the sphere of constitutional protection.

Platforms vs. News Media

Confusion between these spaces leads many to mislabel social media as journalism. But expression platforms serve subjective purposes—a venue for sharing opinions, not facts. The risk here is that poorly constructed regulation may trigger ideological censorship disguised as moderation.

Regulation: Danger and Disguise

There is legitimate debate around regulating illegal content online. However, when moderation becomes subjective, it introduces real dangers:

• Content removals based on unclear standards

• Suppression of political and cultural diversity

• Overconcentration of power in regulators and tech firms

A Better Alternative: User-Controlled Panels

The user preference model now implemented by platforms like X offers a democratic alternative. It provides:

• Fast, personalized content filtering

• Direct control by the individual user

• Less risk of ideological filtering

To be effective, this system must ensure:

1. Transparent moderation rules

2. Objective criteria for removal

3. Appeals for affected users

This model could become a global standard—democratizing the digital space.

Final Thoughts

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19, affirms the right to free expression. In any democratic society, this right cannot be compromised by arbitrary censorship.

If moderation belongs to the user—and not the State—the risk of censorship fades. Social media’s evolution won’t be halted by official decrees.

After all, history shows us that the ink on the censor's pen... always runs dry.

Note: The complete version in portuguese can be accessed in

 https://www.theeagleview.com.br/2025/05/o-equivoco-que-leva-censura.html

References

• Pinheiro Pedro. “A Morte do Livre Pensar.” Available at: 

• Pinheiro Pedro. “O Caos Sob Censura.” Available at: 

• Marks Gray. “Diferenças entre liberdade de expressão e liberdade de imprensa.” Available at: 

• Mundo Educação. “Liberdade de expressão na Constituição Brasileira.” Available at: 

• Toda Matéria. “Liberdade de expressão e democracia.” Available at: 

• Conjur. “Expressão humana e direito internacional.” Available at: 

Antonio Fernando Pinheiro Pedro is a lawyer (University of São Paulo), journalist, and environmental consultant. He served as the first-ever Executive Secretary for Climate Change of the City of São Paulo (June 2021–July 2023). He is the founding partner of the law firm Pinheiro Pedro Advogados, director of AICA – Corporate and Environmental Intelligence Agency, and a member of the Brazilian Institute of Lawyers (IAB). He is Vice-President of the São Paulo Press Association (API), former President of the Environment Commission of the OAB/SP, President of the Legislative Chamber of CEBDS, and chaired the Environment Committee of AMCHAM. He led the drafting of the bill that became Brazil’s National Climate Change Policy Law, and has been a consultant to the Brazilian government, the World Bank, the United Nations, and numerous organizations working to enhance the country’s legal and institutional frameworks. He is a member of the Strategic Studies Center at Think Tank Iniciativa DEX, sits on the Superior Council for National Studies and Policy at FIESP, serves as President of the University of Water Association (UNIÁGUA), and is Editor-in-Chief of Portal Ambiente Legal and author of the blog The Eagle View.