Brazil: “Mick Jagger Baby Mom At Center of Constitutional Crisis!”

https://i1.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Luciana_Gimenez.jpg/240px-Luciana_Gimenez.jpg
Luciana, clothed for a change and contributing to public education. Source: Wikipedia, where for some reason Luciana is assigned equal importance in the context of world and national history as Napoleon and Antonio Conselheiro. If not more so.

Consultor Jurídico (Brazil) recounts a recent case involving trash TV, freedom of expression, and the right to privacy. Sort of a São Paulo version of the “Tom Cruise likes guys” tabloid wars.

A liberdade de manifestação, conquistada a alto preço, não pode ser motivo para violação da intimidade e privacidade, princípios igualmente contemplados na Constituição Federal. O entendimento foi usado pelo juiz Carlos Dias Motta, da 17ª Vara Cível de São Paulo, para condenar a Rede TV! a pagar 200 salários mínimos (R$ 76 mil) de indenização para o modelo Carlos Alberto Cunha Gonçalves. Motivo: Carlos Alberto foi chamado de gay por entrevistados do programa SuperPop, apresentado por Luciana Gimenez.

The freedom of expression, achieved at a high price, cannot be used as a pretext for violation of intimacy and privacy, principles likewise contemplated in the Federal Constitution. This argument was used by Judge Dias Motta of the 17th Civil Bar in São Paulo in condemning Rede TV to pay 200 minimum salaires (R$76,000) in damages to model Carlos Alberto Cunha Gonçalves. The reason: The model was called “gay” by interview subjects on the program SuperPop, hosted by Luciana Gimenez.

A Mick Jagger baby mom, Luciana is.

On SuperPop, see also

A Brazilian feminist heroine and media phenomenon, celebrated with great tenderness in the pages of The New York Times by Larry Rohter — an underaged freelance hooker who blogged her way to media stardom! — took center stage on SuperPop when the hooker in question ran off with the husband of a woman who, after appearing on the program, wound up hooking up with a SuperPop producer.

De acordo com os autos, a Rede TV! exibiu em fevereiro de 2006, no programa SuperPop, reportagem para contar a história do Clube das Mulheres. Apresentador, diretor, dançarinos e outros convidados foram até o estúdio para dar entrevistas. Entre os assuntos tratados, foi abordado o homossexualismo entre os dançarinos. Carlos Alberto foi citado como um dos modelos que abandonaram o Clube das Mulheres por ser gay. Os convidados não chegaram a falar o nome do modelo – o trataram apenas pelo apelido — Carlucho. Mas fotos do modelo foram mostradas.

According to documents in the case, Rede TV showed a report during a February 2006 edition of SuperPop that told the story of the Women’s Club.

An all-male strip club for women only.

The club’s MC, manager, dancers and other guests came to the studio for interviews. Among the topics dicussed was that of homosexualism among the dancers. Carlos Alberto was cited as one of the models who left the club because he was gay. The guests did not mention him by name — they used only his nickname, Carlucho. But photos of the gentleman were displayed.

O modelo disse que foi atingido em sua intimidade e privacidade e entrou com a ação de indenização. A emissora, para se defender, afirmou que foi esclarecido, ainda no programa, que os dançarinos não eram homossexuais porque dançavam para mulheres e não para homens. Também argumentou que o nome completo do modelo não foi divulgado, nem foi dado destaque para seu apelido. Outro argumento foi de o de não houve ofensas, o que tiraria o direito dele receber indenização por danos morais.

The model claimed his intimacy and privacy were violated and sued for damages. The broadcaster, in its defense, said that it was made clear, during the program itself, that dancers are not homosexuals because they dance for women and not men.

Which has exactly what to do with anything?

In my misspent youth, when I was more or less à toa na vida, I knew some women who worked at a gentleman’s club in San Francisco. They were all lesbians, as was the management. I knew gay men who worked all-women’s clubs, too.

This is entertainment: The key job skill is the ability to fake it convincingly.

Besides — if we insist on having an entertainment reference to ground our sense of reality — have we not seen American Gigolo?

It also argued that man’s name was not aired, nor was his nickname reported with any emphasis. Another argument was that there was no offense, which would invalidate his claim for moral damages.

O juiz, além de não acolher as alegações da Rede TV!, deu uma bronca nos apresentadores de programas sensacionalistas. “Programas de natureza notoriamente sensacionalista devem guardar o mínimo de respeito à dignidade da pessoa humana, pois a liberdade de manifestação, conquistada a alto preço, não pode ser motivo para violação imotivada e injustificada de princípios igualmente contemplados na Constituição Federal. Todo direito deve ser exercido com moderação, boa-fé e sem abuso, sob pena dele próprio com o tempo ser enfraquecido e sacrificado”, considerou.

Besides rejecting this defense, the judge chewed out the producers of sensationalist programs. “Programs of a notoriously sensationalist nature ought to observe the minimum respect for the dignity of persons, for the freedom of expression, achieved at a high price, cannot be used as a pretext for the unmotivated and unjustified violation of principles that are also contemplated by the Constitution. Every right should be exercised in moderation and good faith, without abuse, lest over time that right be weakened and sacrificed,” he reasoned.

Ele abordou, ainda, a diferença entre interesse público e interesse do público. Para o juiz, “não há confundir interesse público com mera curiosidade de determinadas pessoas a respeito de assuntos da vida alheia. Interesse público é aquele que contribui de alguma forma para a melhoria da vida das pessoas, para a evolução das relações sociais, para o fomento à cultura ou para o lazer, dentre outros critérios. Não atendia ao interesse público expor o autor àquela situação constrangedora e aos comentários maliciosos dos participantes do programa”.

He also touched upon the difference between the public interest and the interest of the public. In the judge’s thinking, “you cannot confuse the public interest with the mere curiosity of certain persons with respect to other people’s lives. The public interest is that which contributes in some way to improving people’s lives, to the evolution of social relations, to the encouragement of culture or leisure, among other criteria. It was not in the public interest to expose the plaintiff to this embarrassing situation and to malicious commentary by participants in the program.”

“A ofensa não foi decorrente da simples referência do nome do autor no programa, mas do conteúdo dos comentários realizados. Está, portanto, caracterizada a existência de dano moral sofrido pelo autor, sendo, por ele, a ré civilmente responsável, por veicular o programa e dele auferir lucro”, concluiu.

“The offense does not derive from the mere use of the plaintiff’s name on the program, but from the content of the comments mades. Thus, the moral damage claimed by plaintiff is established, and the defendant is civilly responisble, having aired the program and profited from it,” he concluded.

A emissora já recorreu da sentença. Agora, o Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo vai decidir se houve ou não violação à honra. Não há previsão para a data do julgamento da Apelação.

Rede TV has already appealed. Now, the São Paulo [state supreme court] will decide whether or not honor was offended. There is no date set for the ruling on the appeal.

A trivial case, in some respects, but it merits a prominent write-up in ConJur, I would imagine, because jurisprudence on “freedom of expression” is such an important concept at the moment.

Marcel Granier of Venezuela’s RCTV, for example — we glimpsed him recently, being interviewed for a Globo News segment on the upcoming referendum in Hugoland — is a world hero of freedom of expression in some circles, and was recently invited to address the Brazilian Senate.

On which see also

The invitation was extended by some of the same politicians who introduced a bill to characterize social protests resulting in crimes against property as “acts of terrorism.”

If I break your toaster because I am angry that you voted against George Bush, I do not simply owe you another toaster.

I am a terrorist, because my motivations were political, and in furtherance of a political or ideological agenda.

On the other hand, RCTV apparently just plain lies to its viewing audience.

I have seen a number of jaw-dropping cases myself.

They tell me I am only advancing the cause of world Communist domination by pointing this out, but I have a hard time believing that one, too.

These Veja and Globo people here in Brazil employ the same rationale.

“If lies are more commercially viable than facts, as determined by the IBOPE ratings, then the free marketplace of ideas has rendered its verdict!”

IBOPE, not elections, is the true measure of democracy.

Ali Kamel is extremely fond of publishing variations on that theme.

Ali Kamel is also one of the most intellectually dishonest men on the planet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s