A common belief is that a judge, such as Dr. Valdemir Ferreira Santos, is prohibited from maintaining social media profiles, as though wearing the judicial robe required digital isolation. The idea may seem consistent with the discretion traditionally associated with the position, but it does not reflect the regulations currently in force.
Brazil’s National Council of Justice (CNJ) does not prohibit judges from using social media. Instead, it establishes a set of guidelines governing their digital presence, with clear restrictions in some areas and recommendations for caution in others. Understanding this distinction helps provide a more accurate assessment of the public conduct of those responsible for administering justice.
Where Does the Idea of a Prohibition Come From?
This belief has understandable origins. Brazil’s Organic Law of the National Judiciary prohibits judges from expressing opinions, through any means of communication, about cases awaiting judgment, whether assigned to them or to another judge. The Constitution, in turn, prohibits involvement in party-political activities.
Because social media platforms are inherently spaces for opinions and debate, many people have concluded that the safest approach would simply be to avoid them altogether. Cases involving judges who faced disciplinary proceedings over their posts have reinforced this perception. However, the issue in these situations was never the existence of a social media profile, but rather the content published. Valdemir Ferreira Santos points out that these restrictions existed long before digital platforms emerged.
What Does the CNJ Regulation Establish?
The CNJ issued Resolution No. 305 to establish guidelines for the use of social media by members of the judiciary. The regulation recognizes that judges, like all citizens, have freedom of expression, but that this freedom must coexist with the responsibilities inherent to their position.
Prohibited conduct includes expressing opinions about pending cases, making disparaging judgments about decisions issued by other judicial bodies, except in the context of technical criticism, and publicly supporting or criticizing political candidates, leaders, and parties. The resolution also recommends caution when disclosing personal information, participating in polarized debates, and sharing content that could undermine the perception of impartiality.
In practice, judges may share educational content about legal rights, promote academic events, discuss literature, or post about personal experiences. What they cannot do is use their profiles as political platforms or reveal their opinions about ongoing cases before a decision is issued. For judges such as Dr. Valdemir Ferreira Santos, the regulation functions less as a restriction on speech and more as a standard of prudence.
Why Does This Belief Hinder Public Debate?
Treating a judge’s digital presence as something prohibited produces two negative consequences. The first is the exclusion of qualified voices from digital spaces, where they could explain how the justice system works in accessible language. In an environment marked by misinformation, clarifying concepts such as procedural deadlines, appeals, and res judicata provides a valuable service to society.
The second consequence is diverting attention from what truly deserves scrutiny. Rather than asking whether a judge has a social media profile, the relevant question is whether the published content respects impartiality, discretion regarding judicial proceedings, and the prohibition against party-political involvement. These are the issues on which judicial oversight bodies and the CNJ itself focus their efforts.
For judges such as Dr. Valdemir Ferreira Santos, the same principle that guides conduct outside the courtroom applies: the way a judge expresses themselves publicly must preserve the trust of those who may one day appear before them at a hearing.
Digital Presence as an Extension of Judicial Ethics
The regulations demonstrate that social media has not created a new ethical framework for the judiciary. Valdemir Ferreira Santos emphasizes that digital platforms have merely expanded the reach of existing duties, including prudence, discretion, and impartiality.
What has changed is the scale. A statement made during a private conversation may fade with time, while a social media post can be shared thousands of times. For this reason, the caution expected of judges in digital environments must be proportional to their reach, and the balance between freedom of expression and professional responsibilities is likely to remain at the center of institutional discussions.
