‎Brazil News

 

 

The municipality of Santana de Parnaiba, in the state of São Paulo, sued councilor Silvio Eduardo Conegliam Peccioli for having published supposedly false videos and information on his social networks accusing the city hall of “evicting abandoned animals, after providing them with veterinary care necessary, on the street.” The judge responsible for judging the case did not agree with the municipality’s arguments.

 

Subscribe to the public service-focused newsletter Por Dentro da Máquina. Click here to subscribe for free and receive the next editions

The municipality states that in the video that was shared on social media, the dog in question was being returned to employees of the Harold company, who held its collective guardianship. In the action, the city hall says that the councilor “distorted the truth of the facts, leading to the collective imagination that the Municipality was committing environmental crimes” and that the videos had great reach, “having a negative impact on the image of the Public Entity”.

 

In the action, the city hall requested that the councilor delete the posts and refrain from making comments about the alleged abandonment of the animal under penalty of a fine of R$1,000 per hour the post remains. Payment of R$10,000 for moral damages was also requested.

 

Judge Daniele Machado Toledo, from the 2nd Civil Court of the District of Santana de Parnaíba, last Tuesday (10/31), dismissed the municipality's requests as unfounded. She also ordered the city hall to pay procedural costs and expenses, as well as legal fees, set at 10% of the value of the case.

 

The judge said that the documents presented by the city hall show that the dog identified as “Miojo” was rescued and well treated, but do not contain “any information to the effect that he was returned to his respective owner”. She also points out that in one of the documents the animal is described as “wandering” and not “community”.

 

For the judge, it was not demonstrated that the information published by the councilor was lies or fake news. “I also note that the criticisms made were not directed at a specific politician and did not appear to be slanderous, since, as mentioned above, sufficient evidence to the contrary was not provided. It is, therefore, the right to freedom of expression.”

 

The action is being processed under number 1004564-38.2021.8.26.0529.