one of the most complex issues facing modern constitutional law
Em setembro de 2021, o Procurador-Geral da República Augusto Aras dirigiu-se ao Supremo Tribunal Federal com seis petições pedindo a suspensão de uma medida provisória presidencial que proibia plataformas digitais de moderar conteúdo — uma questão que, no fundo, interroga quem detém o poder de definir o que circula no espaço público contemporâneo. Aras não negou a legitimidade do debate, mas defendeu que ele pertence ao Congresso, não a um decreto presidencial expedido às pressas. Num momento em que a democracia brasileira se via pressionada por todos os lados, o Procurador-Geral apostou no processo como resposta — lento, imperfeito, mas legítimo.
- A Medida Provisória 1.068/2021, assinada por Bolsonaro dias antes, retirava das plataformas digitais o direito de remover contas ou moderar conteúdo, invertendo de um golpe as regras vigentes desde o Marco Civil da Internet de 2014.
- Seis partidos políticos — do PSB ao Novo, passando pelo PT e pelo PSDB — já haviam ingressado com ações de inconstitucionalidade, sinalizando que a medida provocou rejeição em todo o espectro político.
- Aras alertou para a 'insegurança jurídica' imediata: as plataformas não saberiam se poderiam continuar suas práticas habituais de moderação sem incorrer em responsabilidade legal.
- O Congresso processava a medida provisória sob rito acelerado adotado na pandemia, comprimindo o debate sobre um dos temas mais complexos do direito constitucional moderno.
- O Projeto de Lei das Fake News, em tramitação desde 2020, já cobria o mesmo terreno — tornando o decreto presidencial não apenas precipitado, mas potencialmente redundante.
- O pedido de Aras era, em essência, um pedido de tempo: suspender a ordem executiva, manter as regras antigas e deixar o Congresso construir uma resposta à altura da complexidade do problema.
Na segunda semana de setembro de 2021, o Procurador-Geral da República Augusto Aras enviou ao Supremo Tribunal Federal seis petições com o mesmo argumento central: a Medida Provisória 1.068/2021, editada pelo presidente Jair Bolsonaro, deveria ser suspensa enquanto o Congresso deliberava sobre o tema. A MP proibia as plataformas de redes sociais de remover contas, suspender perfis ou moderar conteúdo — revertendo, de forma abrupta, o regime estabelecido pelo Marco Civil da Internet.
Seis partidos de diferentes matizes ideológicos — PSB, Solidariedade, PSDB, PT, Novo e PDT — já haviam ajuizado ações diretas de inconstitucionalidade, argumentando que a medida violava direitos fundamentais. Aras compartilhava da preocupação, mas seu argumento ia além: tratava-se de uma questão de processo democrático. A moderação de conteúdo em plataformas digitais era, a seu ver, um dos temas mais sensíveis e complexos do constitucionalismo contemporâneo, e merecia debate amplo no foro adequado — o Parlamento —, não uma solução imposta por decreto.
O contexto agravava o problema. A MP acumulava mais de 170 emendas e estava sendo processada sob rito acelerado, herança dos procedimentos adotados durante a pandemia. Para Aras, a pressa era precisamente o perigo. Enquanto a medida vigorasse, as plataformas enfrentariam imediata insegurança jurídica: continuar moderando conteúdo como sempre fizeram poderia significar infringir a nova lei.
Aras apontou ainda para o Projeto de Lei 2.630/2020 — o chamado PL das Fake News —, que tramitava no Congresso desde 2020 e cobria o mesmo terreno da MP. Por que antecipar por decreto o que o Legislativo já estava construindo com mais cuidado e legitimidade? O pedido do Procurador-Geral era, no fundo, uma defesa do tempo e do processo: suspender a ordem executiva, preservar as regras anteriores e permitir que a lei emergisse do debate, não do voluntarismo presidencial.
On a Monday in mid-September 2021, Brazil's top prosecutor sent six separate legal briefs to the Supreme Court, each one arguing the same thing: the government's new rule about social media should be put on hold. The rule in question was a presidential executive order issued just days earlier by Jair Bolsonaro. It would strip social media companies of their ability to decide what stays and what goes on their platforms—no more removing accounts, no more suspending profiles, no more moderating content the way they had been doing for years. Augusto Aras, the Attorney General, believed this needed to stop, at least temporarily, while Congress figured out what it actually wanted to do.
The executive order, formally known as Provisional Measure 1.068/2021, touched on one of the thorniest questions in modern democracy: who gets to decide what people see online? Bolsonaro's version said the platforms couldn't. Six different political parties—ranging from the Socialist Party on the left to the New Party on the right—had already filed constitutional challenges against it, arguing that the measure trampled on fundamental rights. They wanted the Supreme Court to suspend it immediately. Aras agreed, but for reasons that went deeper than just the parties' objections.
In his briefs, Aras laid out a case for caution. The executive order had already drawn more than 170 amendments and formal requests to send it back to the president on grounds of unconstitutionality. Congress was processing it under a streamlined procedure adopted during the pandemic, which meant the usual deliberative machinery was running faster and looser than normal. For Aras, this was precisely the problem. Content moderation on social media, he argued, was one of the most complex issues facing modern constitutional law. It deserved a full, serious debate in the proper place—Congress—not a rushed executive order with immediate consequences.
The practical stakes were real. If the executive order stayed in effect, social media companies would face immediate legal liability if they continued moderating content the way they always had. The sudden shift in the legal landscape would create what Aras called "legal insecurity"—companies wouldn't know what they could do without breaking the law. The old rules, from Brazil's 2014 Internet Civil Rights Law, had allowed platforms to moderate freely. This new order would reverse that. Aras wanted to keep the old rules in place while Congress decided whether to change them through proper legislation.
There was another piece to this puzzle. Congress was already working on something called the Fake News Bill—a separate piece of legislation designed to address misinformation and content moderation in a comprehensive way. Aras pointed out that this bill, which had been in the legislative pipeline since 2020, covered much of the same ground as Bolsonaro's executive order. Why rush an executive order when Congress was already grappling with the real, underlying question? It made more sense, he argued, to let Congress finish that work, to let the competing values be aired and debated in the appropriate forum, and to let the law emerge from that process rather than from a presidential decree.
The six constitutional challenges had been filed by the Brazilian Socialist Party, the Solidarity Party, the Brazilian Social Democracy Party, the Workers' Party, the New Party, and the Democratic Labour Party. Together they represented a broad political spectrum. Their argument was straightforward: the executive order violated the Constitution. Aras didn't necessarily disagree with that conclusion, but he wanted the Supreme Court to take a step back. Let Congress weigh in first. Let the legislative process run its course. Then, if needed, the Supreme Court could decide whether the measure—or whatever Congress ultimately produced—passed constitutional muster.
What Aras was really asking for was time and process. In a moment of intense social conflict, when social media had become a central battleground for political speech and misinformation, he believed the answer was not an executive order but a deliberate legislative conversation. The Supreme Court could suspend the order temporarily, keeping the old internet law in effect, while Congress decided what the new rules should actually be. It was a plea for the system to work the way it was designed to work—messy, slow, but legitimate.
Notable Quotes
It is prudent to await Congress's deliberation on whether the executive order meets the requirements of relevance and urgency, given the peculiarities of its processing.— Augusto Aras, Attorney General
The sudden legal change to the Internet Civil Rights Law, with a short adaptation period and immediate penalties for non-compliance, creates legal insecurity for companies and providers.— Augusto Aras, Attorney General
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did the Attorney General think suspending the order was better than letting it take effect while Congress debated?
Because he saw the real problem as one of legitimacy and legal stability. An executive order changes the rules overnight. Companies suddenly face liability for doing what they've always done. That creates chaos. Congress moving slowly is actually a feature here, not a bug.
But couldn't Congress just approve the executive order after the fact?
Technically yes, but that's not how the Constitution works in Brazil. An executive order is supposed to be temporary, for genuine emergencies. This was about social media moderation—important, yes, but not an emergency. Congress had already been working on a Fake News Bill for over a year. The Attorney General was saying: use the process that exists.
What would have happened to the social media companies if the order stayed in effect?
They'd be trapped. The old law said they could moderate content. The new order said they couldn't. If they kept moderating, they'd be breaking the law. If they stopped, the platforms would fill with spam and abuse. Either way, they're liable.
Did the Attorney General think the executive order was unconstitutional?
He didn't say that directly. He said it was complex enough that it deserved full debate. He was essentially saying: I'm not going to prejudge the constitutional question. Let Congress weigh in first, then we'll see if it passes constitutional review.
Why did so many different political parties challenge it?
Because content moderation affects everyone. The left worried about censorship of progressive voices. The right worried about censorship of conservative voices. They disagreed on almost everything else, but they agreed this shouldn't be decided by executive decree.
What was the Fake News Bill supposed to do?
Address the same problem—misinformation, harmful content—but through comprehensive legislation rather than an order. It had been in Congress since 2020. The Attorney General was essentially saying: we already have a vehicle for this conversation. Let's use it.