The Federal District Court (TJDFT) has ruled that federal deputy Gustavo Gayer (PL-GO) must pay damages for moral harm to the national president of the PT and federal deputy Gleisi Hoffmann, as well as to federal deputy Lindbergh Farias (PT-RJ).
The decision, issued on April 8, 2026, followed Judge Alfeu Machado’s classification of Gayer’s statements as misogynistic and a ‘serious form of institutional violence.’ The parliamentarian compared Gleisi to a ‘call girl’ and suggested she would form a ‘threesome’ with Senate President Davi Alcolumbre (União-AP) and Lindbergh Farias, remarks that sparked widespread backlash.
The judge emphasized that the expressions used by Gayer were ‘vulgar, sexualized, and devoid of any political or institutional content,’ rejecting the argument that such statements were protected by parliamentary immunity.
As reported by the Metrópoles portal, the deputy was ordered to pay R$ 10,000 to each of the offended parties, totaling R$ 20,000 in damages. Additionally, Gayer was instructed to issue a public retraction on all his social media platforms within 10 days, with a daily fine of R$ 1,000 for non-compliance.
Following the announcement of the ruling, Gleisi Hoffmann expressed on social media that Gayer’s remarks represent an attack not only on her but on all women occupying positions of power, underscoring the importance of combating sexism in politics.
Lindbergh Farias, in turn, stated that the offenses from the Goian deputy reflect a disrespectful stance that is unbecoming of a parliamentarian. Both highlighted the court’s decision as a necessary step to curb abuses in the political environment.
The report sought contact with Gustavo Gayer through his press office for comments on the TJDFT’s decision, but no response was received by the time of publication.
The case has sparked debates about the limits of freedom of expression in the exercise of parliamentary mandate and the need for accountability for hate speech and gender violence in the national political scene. The ruling reinforces the trend of stricter judicial measures in cases involving personal attacks disguised as political criticism, especially when directed at public figures in contexts of clear discrimination.
The impact of the decision extends beyond the individual sphere of those involved, serving as a precedent for future actions against parliamentarians who use offensive language under the guise of immunity.
Constitutional law experts consulted by the press suggest that the TJDFT’s understanding could influence other courts to adopt similar stances, strengthening protection against verbal abuses in the legislative environment. Gayer’s conviction reignites discussions on the challenges of promoting a more respectful public debate focused on issues of collective interest, rather than personal attacks and discriminatory provocations.
Original published at O Cafezinho.