Defamation on a plane can lead to criminal prosecution and compensation

This week, a video recorded inside a plane gained great repercussion on social media. In it, a mother appears to offend another passenger who refused to change seats, which prevented her son, a toddler, from sitting in the seat next to the window.

Visibly irritated, the woman continued to express her indignation. She called the attitude “disgusting” and lamented the lack of empathy in the 21st century, especially in situations involving children.

The episode generated wide discussion and brought to light important legal issues, both in the criminal and civil spheres.

Regular exercise of the right

Starting with the refusal to change seats, it is essential to highlight that the passenger acted within the limits of the regular exercise of a right. Because it is known that airlines charge for choosing a seat in advance.

This way, remaining in the previously designated place does not constitute an illegal act. If you lack empathy for not making the exchange, this is something that should not be dealt with in the field of law, but in moral.

The mother’s reaction by publicly disqualifying the other person and publishing the video on the internet, in turn, leaves room for legal implications.

The filming was carried out with the obvious purpose of forcing the passenger to change seats cannot be treated as illegal constrainta crime provided for in article 146 of the CP, as it presupposes the use of violence, a serious threat, or even reducing, by any means, the victim’s capacity to resist, which did not occur.

Also does not seem to be the case that threat (article 147 of the CP), which requires the promise of unjust and serious evil. The (threat of) exposure of the passenger on social media cannot be treated as such.

Okay, so the fact would be atypical?

penal sphere

It seems to us that the conduct can be classified as defamation crimeprovided for in article 139 of the Penal Code, which occurs when someone assigns fact offensive to reputation of another person to third parties.

In this case, the release of the video, containing offenses and criticism, apparently fulfills the elements characterizing this crime. Additionally, as the content was widely shared on social media, the cause of penalty increase provided for in article 141, §2, of the Penal Code, which triples the sanction when the crime is committed through a means that facilitates its wide dissemination, such as the internet.

It is important to remember that the crime of defamation is prosecuted through private criminal actionthat is, it depends on the criminal complaint filed by the victim.

As for jurisdiction to judgethe Special Criminal Courts are competent for criminal offenses with less offensive potential. This is provided that the maximum penalty imposed for the offense does not exceed two years, in accordance with articles 60 and 61 of Law 9,099/95. However, as the reason for increasing the sentence increases the sanction above two years, the jurisdiction falls to the Criminal Court.

If there is an express request in the criminal complaint, in the event of conviction, the criminal judge himself may set the minimum amount of compensation for the victim of defamation, in accordance with article 387, IV, of the CPP.

Civil sphere

In the civil sphere, the recording and dissemination of video without consent constitutes a violation of rights. The Federal Constitution, in article 5, item X, ensures the protection of honor, image, intimacy and private life, guaranteeing compensation in case of violation.

The Civil Code also reinforces this protection in article 20, which requires prior authorization for the use of the image of someone, especially in situations that could harm their honor or expose the person in a humiliating way.

In this case, the dissemination of the video without permission, in a context that negatively exposed the passenger, can be understood as a violation of her fundamental rights. Article 186 of the Civil Code provides that whoever causes damage, even if moral, commits an unlawful act and, according to article 927, must repair it, with the victim being responsible for claiming compensation for moral damages. This civil liability is independent of the criminal sphere.

Even if the incident occurred in a public place, such as the interior of an airplane, this does not eliminate the need to respect people’s privacy and dignity. Being in a shared environment does not authorize the exposure of third party imagesespecially in situations that may cause embarrassment or damage to your reputation.

In short, the author of the video can be held responsible both in the criminal sphere, for the crime of increased defamationas well as in the civil sphere, for the moral damages caused to the passenger.

The case serves as an important warning about the necessary care when recording and disseminating content involving other people, especially in times of social networks, a space in which information is disseminated quickly and widely.