{"id":522,"date":"2025-07-05T16:59:24","date_gmt":"2025-07-05T16:59:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ivstitia.co\/?page_id=522"},"modified":"2025-07-05T16:59:24","modified_gmt":"2025-07-05T16:59:24","slug":"novo-codigo-eleitoral-brasileiro","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/iustitia.com.br\/en\/?page_id=522","title":{"rendered":"New brazilian electoral code"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
Image by TSE<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>
<\/p>

\r\n\t#Electoral code<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0<\/p>

<\/p>

\r\n\tThe Complementary Bill (PLP) 112\/2021 is a proposal that is being discussed in the Federal Senate to create a new Electoral Code in Brazil<\/strong><\/p>

This bill brings together rules on how elections should work, including topics such as transparency, security, organization of electoral processes, political rights and the functioning of parties.<\/p>

\r\nThe goal is to strengthen democracy, making elections clearer and more reliable.\r\n<\/p>

\r\nThe Controversial Article 869: Imprisonment for Criticizing the Elections?<\/b>\r\n<\/p>

\r\nOne of the most discussed points of PLP 112\/2021 is Article 869, paragraph 4. According to recent posts on the social network X, this article provides for up to 7 years in prison for anyone who “encourages distrust in the results of elections or questions the legitimacy of the electoral process”.<\/p>

\r\nThis part of the bill is causing concern, because the wording is considered vague and can be interpreted subjectively, which could limit freedom of expression.\r\n<\/p>

<\/p>

\r\n1. Lack of Clarity:<\/b>\r\n<\/p>

\r\n– Words like “encourage distrust” or “delegitimize” are not well defined in the bill.<\/p>

\r\nThis could lead to common criticisms, such as questioning the security of electronic voting machines or the transparency of elections, being seen as crimes, even without the intention of causing trouble.\r\n<\/p>

<\/p>

\r\n2. Risk to Freedom of Expression:<\/b>\r\n<\/p>

\r\n– The Brazilian Constitution protects freedom of expression, especially in political matters.<\/p>

\r\nHowever, Article 869 could be used to punish opinions that question the electoral system, even if they are legitimate concerns, with no intention of creating confusion.\r\n<\/p>

<\/p>

\r\n3. More Power for the Judiciary:<\/b>\r\n<\/p>

\r\n– The bill leaves it up to judges to decide what constitutes “delegitimization.” This could give too much power to the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) and the Supreme Federal Court (STF), which worries some people, especially in times of political division, as it could lead to unfair decisions.\r\n<\/p>

<\/p>

\r\n4. Possibility of Censorship:<\/b>\r\n<\/p>

\r\n– The wording of the article may discourage people from talking about problems in the elections, for fear of punishment.<\/p>

\r\nThis creates a “silencing effect”, where citizens avoid debating important topics to avoid being prosecuted.\r\n<\/p>

<\/p>

\r\n5. Disinformation x Legitimate Criticism:<\/b>\r\n<\/p>

\r\n– The project aims to combat disinformation, such as spreading proven lies that harm the elections.<\/p>

\r\nHowever, without clear criteria, honest opinions or questions may be mistaken for disinformation and punished.\r\n<\/p>

\r\nWhat are they saying on X?\r\n<\/p>

\r\nSome posts on X, such as those by users like @VoxLiberdade and @marciombittar, warn that PLP 112\/2021 may be a threat to democracy.<\/p>

\r\nThey believe the bill could be used to silence people who disagree with the election results or criticize the system, especially at a time when many Brazilians are distrustful of institutions.\r\n<\/p>

\r\nThe other side of the argument\r\n<\/p>

\r\nThose who support the bill say it is necessary to protect the elections against attacks and misinformation that could undermine confidence in democracy.<\/p>

\r\nThe TSE already has rules, such as Article 9-A of Resolution No.<\/p>

\r\n23.610\/2019, which prohibits spreading proven lies about the elections, but always seeks to balance this with freedom of expression.<\/p>

\r\nPLP 112\/2021 would reinforce these measures, but the lack of clarity in Article 869 is a constant criticism.\r\n<\/p>

<\/p>

\r\nConclusion<\/b>\r\n<\/p>

\r\nPLP 112\/2021, especially Article 869, could end up punishing legitimate criticism of the elections because of its confusing wording.<\/p>

\r\nWhile the goal is to protect democracy, the lack of clear definitions can lead to abuses, limiting freedom of expression and giving too much power to the courts.<\/p>

\r\nTo address this, it would be important to revise the article, making it clear what is considered “delegitimization” and ensuring that only actions with a clear intention to undermine the elections are punished.\r\n<\/p>

\r\nPlease note: The information about Article 869 comes from posts on X, which are not definitive proof.<\/p>

\r\nTo confirm the exact and updated text of PLP 112\/2021, visit the official website of the Federal Senate (www25.senado.leg.br).<\/p>

<\/p>

\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Published in 07\/05\/2025 16h59<\/em><\/p>\r\n

\r\n

Portuguese version<\/a><\/em><\/p>\r\n

\r\n\r\n\t\t

Text adapted by AI (Grok) and translated via Google API in the English version. Images from public image libraries or credits in the caption.<\/p>\r\n\t\t

\r\n\t\t

Reference article:<\/p>\r\n\t\t\r\n\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n