Electoral inspector Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva restored the WhatsApp channel “Exército do Lula,” run by federal deputy André Janones, after TSE president Kassio Nunes Marques had ordered it suspended. The channel, with more than 3.3 million followers, may operate until the full electoral court reviews the case, but it cannot repost material already ruled unlawful by the TSE.¹

Cueva’s decision focused on procedure as well as proportionality. He said Flávio Bolsonaro’s legal team sought an administrative order from the TSE president shortly after Cueva had requested further information in a related case. Using separate procedural routes, he said, cannot become a means of repeatedly selecting a judge. He also held that closing an entire channel requires evidence that narrower remedies would not suffice: “The full suspension of a channel requires proof of the scope and repetition of the conduct” and of the inadequacy of less restrictive measures aimed at specific posts.¹

Flávio Bolsonaro’s campaign sees the matter differently. It called the reinstatement “astonishing” and said it showed “complacency with the blatant dissemination of fake news in favor of Lula.” The campaign argues that the channel not only circulated false material but instructed followers on how to evade electoral and platform controls.²

Janones and Lula’s allies characterize the original suspension as censorship. Celebrating the reversal, Janones said: “No one silences the voice of a people when it unites.”³ Their position is that a wholesale shutdown impairs campaign communication rather than targeting proven violations.

Digital-rights specialists quoted by Agência Brasil broadly share that concern while not dismissing enforcement against false content. Witness public-policy manager Bruna Santos called the initial order “disproportionate,” arguing that removing specific material would be more appropriate than eliminating the channel. Technology specialist Henrique Sampaio likewise said the label “fake news” should not become a generic justification for suppressing a legitimate space for voter organization.⁴

Nunes Marques, however, had concluded that post-by-post removal could not protect voters because messages could reach millions immediately, be copied into other groups and then deleted after serving their purpose.⁴ The full TSE now faces the task of weighing that risk against the reach of a blanket restriction.