« So close, yet so far: a new series | Main | the eyeball incident »

October 03, 2008



The press may be free, but attributing crimes to a person before they've been convicted of it is very tricky. Specially when you're dealing with a "peixe grande "like Lins e Silva. I'd assume that he knows how threat people in convincing ways, not to mention that he probably has more than enough connections inside the press to kill the story.

And I'm willing to bet that that happens everywhere in the world, unfortunately.


Er. Well, of course they have the right to publish a story naming names—that was never the issue, was it? You've been in Brazil long enough to realise that string-pulling defines our country in many ways. (It also keeps it running, and keeps our administration from being in any way efficient.) I have no doubt Globo would have the resources to go to court, but—why bother? Lins e Silva may very well be a close friend of well-placed people within the company. Hell, he may even have worked for Globo in a case or two.

(According to Brazilian law, they only have to change/not disclose the names of children involved in a news story if said child is a criminal, as per the 2nd paragraph of article 247 in Law 8.069/1990, our ECA.)

As for the court injunction, I don't know what basis one could use to keep this out of the press, but I'm guessing that it could have something to derived from this:

Art. 155. Os atos processuais são públicos. Correm, todavia, em segredo de justiça os processos:
Il - que dizem respeito a casamento, filiação, separação dos cônjuges, conversão desta em divórcio, alimentos e guarda de menores. (this comes from Lei 5.869/1973, our Civil Procedure Code)

The purpose of this is to keep—well—private shit from hitting the fan, since Family Law lawsuits tend to get really ugly most of the time. This article is based on the constitutional principle of human dignity (all the situations cited in the article, but especially the marriage-related ones) and also that which made the protection of minors one of the so-called most important pillars of our legal system (the other bits: alimony, custody, paternity, et al.).

He probably just claimed something like, "Look, this is a private, family matter; the place to discuss it is not to put the case under public scrutiny. He can try to take all the legal measures he needs to get Sean back (but you can't report it whenever he does, obviously), and we'll discuss it under the protection of our court system—which will of course at all times act on Sean's behalf. What good will it do for Sean to see his own name on the media as a kidnapped child and whatnot? None whatsoever. It will upset him and confuse him. I'm doing my part to become the boy's legal guardian, and if David has an issue with that, he should sue me."

I apologise for the excessive length of this comment. I'm a Law student, but I'm not entirely sure I expressed myself well enough (I may have been unintentionally rude or unclear, too—if so, I'm very sorry); I'm totally sleep-deprived, and I haven't actually had to study the mockery that is our Constitution and the principles it upholds (notably the "princípio da dignidade humana", which is said to be the core of our legal system) in the past year or so. Pah!


Has the NY Times picked up the story?

That would certainly be helpful to Mr. Goldman.

The comments to this entry are closed.