Marçal Silences Boulos in Controversial Video and PSOL Takes Legal Action!
Share
The Digital Battle: Marçal vs. Boulos in São Paulo!
The Video War: What's Going On?
In an electrifying turn of events in the race for Mayor of São Paulo, Pablo Marçal, businessman and candidate for the PRTB, starred in a shocking episode that left many perplexed. Guilherme Boulos's right of reply from the PSOL was launched with an intriguing black screen as a cover. This maneuver was carried out in the early hours of Tuesday (3), with the video posted at 00:27 on Instagram, under order of the Electoral Court.
The Cover of Controversy
👉 A video's cover usually reflects the essence of the content. But, in this case, Boulos was faced with a completely dark screen! While other posts by Marçal show his charisma and interactions with journalists, this intriguing video casts a shadow over the transparency of the candidacy.
The Legal Process in Focus
Boulos' campaign did not sit idly by! They went to court, claiming that the black cape represented a violation of the court order, requesting that the video be reposted. However, the court denied the request on Wednesday (4).
The Court Speaks Out
"[Marçal] purposefully sought to limit the reach of the publication to network users," stated Boulos' campaign. And, in an act of dark irony, Marçal posted six additional videos that same morning, attracting the public's attention in an explosive way!
The Judge's Decision: A Coup or Just Cause?
Judge Murillo Cotrim took an intriguing position. Although he acknowledged that Marçal's strategy limited the visibility of the response, he concluded that the video reached more than 219 thousand likes and 117 thousand comments. To top it off, the judge highlighted that the response video has already surpassed 6 million views!
The Explosive Events: What Motivated the Reaction?
Marçal was condemned to grant the right of reply after making unfounded accusations against Boulos, insinuating drug use. What's more, a new punishment was applied: a fine of R$10,000 for negative and misleading electoral propaganda. Judge Rodrigo Marzola Colombini was categorical:
"The digital Wild West is not an option in a democratic State of Law; neither is political vandalism."
Accusations that Hurt Family Members
In an emotional moment, Boulos expressed his indignation. In his video, he revealed that his daughters came home from school in tears, marked by the false accusations. Words from a true defender of ethics:
“Since the beginning of my professional life as a teacher, I have always taught my students what freedom of expression is... But we cannot confuse freedom of expression with the freedom to commit crimes and lie.”
Table of Conflicts: Boulos vs. Marçal
| Aspect | Pablo Marçal (PRTB) | Guilherme Boulos (PSOL) |
|---|---|---|
| Accusations | Use of illicit substances | Vehemently refuted the allegations |
| Response Video | Black screen as cover | Rebut the accusations on various platforms |
| Views | 6 million views (Court data) | Proven impact also in terms of amount |
| Fine Imposed | R$ 10 thousand | - |
| Additional Posts | 6 videos before the video response | - |
The End or a New Beginning?
While Marçal's campaign has not spoken out, these events spark a heated debate about political ethics and freedom of expression on social media. The clash between Marçal and Boulos is more than just an electoral dispute; it is a digital Wild West where truth and lies collide in broad daylight. What will come next? The tension remains in the shadows, leaving everyone in suspense!
FAQ
FAQ about the Digital Battle: Marçal vs. Boulos in São Paulo
What happened between Pablo Marçal and Guilherme Boulos?
The dispute between Pablo Marçal, candidate for the PRTB, and Guilherme Boulos, candidate for the PSOL, gained notoriety after Marçal posted a video with a black screen as the cover, leading Boulos to claim a right of reply. The court denied Boulos' request for the video to be reposted, intensifying the conflict.
Why did the black screen on the cover of Boulos' video generate controversy?
The black screen contradicts the objective of a response video, which should represent the essence of the content. Marçal's choice of a dark cover was interpreted as a strategy to limit the reach and visibility of Boulos' responses, raising questions about transparency and ethics in the campaign.
What was the court's decision on the dispute between the candidates?
Judge Murillo Cotrim acknowledged that Marçal's strategy to limit the visibility of the response was evident, but highlighted that his video had reached millions of views. In addition, Marçal was ordered to grant Boulos the right to reply, and was also fined R$10,000 for negative and misleading electoral propaganda.
How did Boulos feel about the accusations made by Marçal?
Boulos expressed his indignation, especially due to the emotional impact that the false accusations had on his daughters. He emphasized that while freedom of expression is crucial, it should not be confused with the freedom to commit crimes or lie.
What were the public reactions to the clash between Marçal and Boulos?
The episode sparked an intense debate about political ethics and freedom of expression on social media. Many question how disinformation and image manipulation strategies have influenced the electoral campaign and public perception.
What impact did the posting of the videos have on Marçal's campaign?
Despite the criticism and controversy, Marçal's strategy apparently had a positive impact in terms of views, with his video reaching more than 6 million views, contributing to his projection in the electoral dispute.
Does this clash between Marçal and Boulos indicate a trend in electoral campaigns?
Yes, the digital battle between the two candidates highlights a growing trend of using controversial strategies and disinformation in electoral campaigns, raising concerns about ethics and responsibility in contemporary political communication.