The intervention was made by Liberal Initiative (IL) deputy Mário Amorim Lopes during the political declarations session in the Assembly of the Republic. He expressed disdain for a “world where satire is punished and sensitivity is law” and argued that “freedom of expression is not a favor granted to those who say” what others want to hear.
“Standing with the consensus is easy, very easy. Freedom of expression exists to protect everyone else. Freedom of expression is the most beautiful form of freedom of thought. When one cannot say everything, one cannot think freely,” he stated.
Specifically addressing the case involving Joana Marques and the musical group Anjos, Mário Amorim Lopes remarked that the legal action is not just about the comedian but concerns “everyone as a free society.”
“By defending herself, Joana defends us all. The diminutive Joana Marques defends us with a greatness reserved only for a few. She defends the freedom to laugh at ourselves and others. She defends satire, criticism, creative freedom. She defends the right to continue speaking freely,” he declared.
Mário Amorim Lopes requested equal punishment if one day someone decides that “satire should be punished, if one day Joana Marques or some other comedian is convicted.”
Following this speech, BE’s sole deputy, Mariana Mortágua, criticized Mário Amorim Lopes for discussing a legal case when no conviction exists yet and took the opportunity to throw a jab at IL.
“In Argentina, when Milei creates a mute button to silence journalists’ questions, when he suppresses pensioners’ protests, (…) is he defending freedom of expression as IL conceives it?” she asked, with Mário Amorim Lopes condemning the situation in Argentina and countering that BE included former members of FP-25 in its lists.
Deputy Paulo Muacho from Livre also criticized the content of Mário Amorim Lopes’ statement, finding it inappropriate to make “parliament debate a legal case that has not even been decided yet.”
“It’s even a case of saying: ‘calm down, young man.’ Speaking on freedom of expression, what’s necessary is not discussing here in parliament the limits of humor – that will be decided by the court, and we don’t even believe legislation in that area is needed – but the limits of hate speech,” he argued.
The PSD, represented by Deputy João Antunes dos Santos, similarly criticized Mário Amorim Lopes, asserting that IL simply brought up this topic because it “knows it’s a media topic and is the topic of the week.”
The PSD deputy reminded IL of the principle of separation of powers in Portugal and asked Mário Amorim Lopes if it wouldn’t be “wiser to wait for Justice to run its course,” “instead of opportunistically seeking easy news.”
In response, Mário Amorim Lopes stated that the Assembly of the Republic is not a court and emphasized that he was making a “political defense of a foundational value of any democratic and free society,” arguing that it is never untimely to discuss freedom of expression.
