A Brazilian Federal Regional Court has unanimously dismissed criminal charges against veterinary student Isadora Borges, who faced up to 10 years in prison for social media posts affirming biological reality.

It is the first time a federal court in Brazil has ruled on the merits of a criminal "transphobia" accusation, and the decision sets an important precedent.

Borges’ posts, made on X in 2020, included statements that transgender-identifying individuals retain their birth DNA and that no surgery or synthetic hormone changes that fact. A transgender-identifying politician reported her to the federal police. Criminal charges followed. The court found that Borges’ comments contained no attack, threat, or hostility, and lacked the criminal intent required to sustain a conviction.

Borges said after the ruling: “The truth matters. Stating biological facts in a post should never result in prison time.”

The win is significant, but Brazilians still face a hostile legal environment. ADF International, which provided legal support to Borges, has described the situation in Brazil as a “censorship crisis”. Since a 2019 Supreme Court ruling equated “transphobia” with the crime of racism, the number of criminal investigations have increased dramatically. ADF International is also representing social media commentator Nine Borges (no relation to Isadora), who faces a separate criminal investigation for online commentary, along with five Brazilian legislators challenging state censorship before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

ADF International legal counsel Julio Pohl warned that even when charges are dismissed, the damage is done: “The effect of this kind of censorial overreach is to chill speech across the entire country.”

Australians should pay close attention. The legal tools differ, but the pattern is familiar. HRLA client Lyle Shelton, who has been fighting a vilification complaint since 2020 over blog posts criticising drag queen story time for children, recently had his win at first instance overturned by a Queensland appeal tribunal. His case now enters its seventh year. Similarly, Jasmine Sussex faces a vilification complaint for raising concerns about “male breastfeeding” and child safety.

In each case, the process is the punishment. Years of litigation, mounting legal costs, and the ever-present threat of adverse findings function as a deterrent to lawful speech, whether or not a conviction or penalty is ultimately imposed.

But Australian should be free to speak truthfully about biological reality without fear of legal punishment. HRLA will continue to defend that freedom.