## Facts

- Social movements organized public demonstrations advocating decriminalization or legalization of marijuana and other drugs.
- Lower courts in multiple cities issued orders prohibiting these demonstrations, reasoning that publicly defending legalization amounted to criminal “apology of crime” because marijuana-related conduct was criminalized.
- The Prosecutor General filed two constitutional challenges:
  - An action contesting a judicial reading of a provision criminalizing “apology of crime,” as applied to demonstrations advocating drug-law reform.
  - An action contesting a reading of a drug-law provision criminalizing “inducing, instigating, or aiding” drug use, insofar as it could be used against organizers or participants in reform demonstrations.
- The petitions asserted that these prohibitions violated constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, including protection for minority viewpoints.

## Issues

1. Whether prohibiting public demonstrations advocating drug-law reform as criminal “apology of crime” violates constitutional protections for freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
2. Whether a statute criminalizing “inducing, instigating, or aiding” drug use may be interpreted to criminalize participation in, or organization of, demonstrations and public debate supporting decriminalization or legalization.
3. Whether constitutional “conforming interpretation” is required to prevent overbroad applications that suppress protected political advocacy.

## Decision

- The court unanimously granted relief in both proceedings.
- It held that peaceful demonstrations advocating drug-law reform are a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and the right of assembly.
- It adopted a constitution-conforming construction of the “apology of crime” provision to exclude any reading that would criminalize advocacy for legalization or decriminalization, including through public events.
- It adopted a constitution-conforming construction of the drug-law “inducing/instigating/aiding” provision to exclude any reading that would prohibit or punish public demonstrations and debates about decriminalization or legalization.
- The court emphasized that protected advocacy is distinct from punishable incitement to commit crimes or encouragement of immediate illegal acts.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional protections for speech and peaceful assembly cover political advocacy for changing existing criminal laws, including advocacy that challenges majority views.
- Advocacy for legal reform does not, by itself, constitute criminal apology of crime or criminal inducement/instigation of illegal conduct.
- Statutes touching speech must be construed to avoid suppressing protected expression; constitution-conforming interpretation is appropriate to exclude unconstitutional applications.
- The state may enforce neutral conditions for lawful assemblies (e.g., peaceful conduct, non-violence, and administrative notice requirements), but may not impose content-based bans on political viewpoints.
- Constitutional protection does not extend to direct incitement of unlawful acts or conduct that is itself illegal during the event.

## Conclusion

The court held that peaceful “Marijuana March” demonstrations and similar events are constitutionally protected political expression and assembly, and it required limiting constructions of relevant criminal provisions so they cannot be used to ban or punish advocacy for drug-law reform absent unlawful incitement or illegal conduct.


Procurador-Geral da República v. Lower-Court Decisions Banning “Marijuana March” Demonstrations (ADPF 187) & Procurador-Geral da República v. Brazil (ADI 4274) (Braz. Sup. Fed. Ct. 2011)