Freedom of expression and combating disinformation: The STF and the Principle of Proportionality in post-expression accountability

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Morais, André Veloso Machado Guerra de
Data de Publicação: 2025
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Revista JRG de Estudos Acadêmicos
Texto Completo: http://revistajrg.com/index.php/jrg/article/view/1850
Resumo: This study addresses the challenge of balancing freedom of expression with combating disinformation within the Brazilian legal context, focusing on the application of the principle of proportionality by the Federal Supreme Court (STF). Freedom of expression, recognized as a fundamental right and a pillar of democracy, faces limitations when it conflicts with values such as human dignity and the protection of public order. In this scenario, the STF plays a central role in interpreting conflicts between the right to freedom of expression and the need for accountability for abusive manifestations, especially in cases involving the proliferation of disinformation and hate speech. The general objective of this study is to analyze how the STF has balanced these fundamental rights. The research adopts a qualitative, exploratory, and theoretical approach, based on the hypothetical-deductive method. It relies on a bibliographic review of authors such as Schauer (1982) and Dworkin (1996), as well as jurisprudential analysis of landmark cases such as ADPF 130, RE 1010606, and Inquiry 4781. The results reveal that the STF takes a dynamic stance, using the principle of proportionality to weigh conflicting values. Decisions such as the declaration of unconstitutionality of the Press Law in ADPF 130 reinforce the prohibition of prior censorship, while post-expression accountability, as in RE 1010606, highlights the protection of historical memory and collective interests. In Inquiry 4781, the STF demonstrates judicial activism in addressing digital disinformation, holding actors and platforms accountable for illicit practices. The study concludes that the STF has sought to consolidate a balance between freedom of expression and combating disinformation, aligning itself with contemporary theories of law and political philosophy. However, its activist stance in certain cases raises debates about the limits of its role and the impacts on legal certainty and digital governance in Brazil.
id JRG_cbbb8a8121a034994973b680fc0d157f
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs2.revistajrg.com:article/1850
network_acronym_str JRG
network_name_str Revista JRG de Estudos Acadêmicos
repository_id_str
spelling Freedom of expression and combating disinformation: The STF and the Principle of Proportionality in post-expression accountabilityLiberdade de expressão e combate à desinformação: O STF e o Princípio da Proporcionalidade na responsabilização pós-expressão Liberdade de expressãoDesinformaçãoProporcionalidadeFreedom of expressionDisinformationProportionalityThis study addresses the challenge of balancing freedom of expression with combating disinformation within the Brazilian legal context, focusing on the application of the principle of proportionality by the Federal Supreme Court (STF). Freedom of expression, recognized as a fundamental right and a pillar of democracy, faces limitations when it conflicts with values such as human dignity and the protection of public order. In this scenario, the STF plays a central role in interpreting conflicts between the right to freedom of expression and the need for accountability for abusive manifestations, especially in cases involving the proliferation of disinformation and hate speech. The general objective of this study is to analyze how the STF has balanced these fundamental rights. The research adopts a qualitative, exploratory, and theoretical approach, based on the hypothetical-deductive method. It relies on a bibliographic review of authors such as Schauer (1982) and Dworkin (1996), as well as jurisprudential analysis of landmark cases such as ADPF 130, RE 1010606, and Inquiry 4781. The results reveal that the STF takes a dynamic stance, using the principle of proportionality to weigh conflicting values. Decisions such as the declaration of unconstitutionality of the Press Law in ADPF 130 reinforce the prohibition of prior censorship, while post-expression accountability, as in RE 1010606, highlights the protection of historical memory and collective interests. In Inquiry 4781, the STF demonstrates judicial activism in addressing digital disinformation, holding actors and platforms accountable for illicit practices. The study concludes that the STF has sought to consolidate a balance between freedom of expression and combating disinformation, aligning itself with contemporary theories of law and political philosophy. However, its activist stance in certain cases raises debates about the limits of its role and the impacts on legal certainty and digital governance in Brazil.O presente estudo aborda o desafio de equilibrar a liberdade de expressão com o combate à desinformação no contexto jurídico brasileiro, com foco na aplicação do princípio da proporcionalidade pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF). A liberdade de expressão, reconhecida como um direito fundamental e pilar da democracia, enfrenta relativizações quando colide com valores como a dignidade humana e a proteção da ordem pública. Nesse cenário, o STF atua como protagonista na interpretação de conflitos entre o direito à liberdade de expressão e a necessidade de responsabilização por manifestações abusivas, especialmente em casos que envolvem a proliferação de desinformação e discursos de ódio. O objetivo geral do estudo é analisar como o STF tem equilibrado esses direitos fundamentais. A pesquisa adota uma abordagem qualitativa, de natureza exploratória e teórica, fundamentada no método hipotético-dedutivo. Baseia-se em revisão bibliográfica de autores como Schauer (1982) e Dworkin (1996), além de análise jurisprudencial de casos paradigmáticos, como a ADPF 130, o RE 1010606 e o Inquérito 4781. Os resultados revelam que o STF adota uma postura dinâmica, utilizando o princípio da proporcionalidade para ponderar os valores em conflito. Decisões como a declaração de inconstitucionalidade da Lei de Imprensa na ADPF 130 reforçam a vedação à censura prévia, ao passo que a responsabilização pós-expressão, como no RE 1010606, destaca a proteção da memória histórica e do interesse coletivo. Já no Inquérito 4781, o STF demonstra um ativismo judicial ao enfrentar a desinformação digital, responsabilizando atores e plataformas por práticas ilícitas. Conclui-se que o STF tem buscado consolidar um equilíbrio entre liberdade de expressão e combate à desinformação, alinhando-se a teorias contemporâneas do direito e da filosofia política. No entanto, sua postura ativista em certos casos levanta debates sobre os limites de sua atuação e os impactos sobre a segurança jurídica e a governança digital no Brasil.Editora JRG2025-01-31info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionArtigo avaliado pelos Paresapplication/pdfhttp://revistajrg.com/index.php/jrg/article/view/185010.55892/jrg.v8i18.1850ark:/57118/JRG.v8i18.1850JRG Journal of Academic Studies; Vol. 8 No. 18 (2025): Revista JRG de Estudos Acadêmicos; e181850JRG Journal of Academic Studies ; Vol. 8 Núm. 18 (2025): Revista JRG de Estudos Acadêmicos; e181850JRG Journal of Academic Studies; V. 8 N. 18 (2025): Revista JRG de Estudos Acadêmicos; e181850Revista JRG de Estudos Acadêmicos ; v. 8 n. 18 (2025): Revista JRG de Estudos Acadêmicos; e1818502595-1661ark:/57118/jrg.v8i18reponame:Revista JRG de Estudos Acadêmicosinstname:Editora JRGinstacron:JRGporhttp://revistajrg.com/index.php/jrg/article/view/1850/1495https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMorais, André Veloso Machado Guerra de2025-01-31T12:35:56Zoai:ojs2.revistajrg.com:article/1850Revistahttp://revistajrg.com/index.php/jrgPRIhttp://revistajrg.com/index.php/jrg/oaiprofessorjonas@gmail.com||2595-16612595-1661opendoar:2025-01-31T12:35:56Revista JRG de Estudos Acadêmicos - Editora JRGfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Freedom of expression and combating disinformation: The STF and the Principle of Proportionality in post-expression accountability
Liberdade de expressão e combate à desinformação: O STF e o Princípio da Proporcionalidade na responsabilização pós-expressão
title Freedom of expression and combating disinformation: The STF and the Principle of Proportionality in post-expression accountability
spellingShingle Freedom of expression and combating disinformation: The STF and the Principle of Proportionality in post-expression accountability
Morais, André Veloso Machado Guerra de
Liberdade de expressão
Desinformação
Proporcionalidade
Freedom of expression
Disinformation
Proportionality
title_short Freedom of expression and combating disinformation: The STF and the Principle of Proportionality in post-expression accountability
title_full Freedom of expression and combating disinformation: The STF and the Principle of Proportionality in post-expression accountability
title_fullStr Freedom of expression and combating disinformation: The STF and the Principle of Proportionality in post-expression accountability
title_full_unstemmed Freedom of expression and combating disinformation: The STF and the Principle of Proportionality in post-expression accountability
title_sort Freedom of expression and combating disinformation: The STF and the Principle of Proportionality in post-expression accountability
author Morais, André Veloso Machado Guerra de
author_facet Morais, André Veloso Machado Guerra de
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Morais, André Veloso Machado Guerra de
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Liberdade de expressão
Desinformação
Proporcionalidade
Freedom of expression
Disinformation
Proportionality
topic Liberdade de expressão
Desinformação
Proporcionalidade
Freedom of expression
Disinformation
Proportionality
description This study addresses the challenge of balancing freedom of expression with combating disinformation within the Brazilian legal context, focusing on the application of the principle of proportionality by the Federal Supreme Court (STF). Freedom of expression, recognized as a fundamental right and a pillar of democracy, faces limitations when it conflicts with values such as human dignity and the protection of public order. In this scenario, the STF plays a central role in interpreting conflicts between the right to freedom of expression and the need for accountability for abusive manifestations, especially in cases involving the proliferation of disinformation and hate speech. The general objective of this study is to analyze how the STF has balanced these fundamental rights. The research adopts a qualitative, exploratory, and theoretical approach, based on the hypothetical-deductive method. It relies on a bibliographic review of authors such as Schauer (1982) and Dworkin (1996), as well as jurisprudential analysis of landmark cases such as ADPF 130, RE 1010606, and Inquiry 4781. The results reveal that the STF takes a dynamic stance, using the principle of proportionality to weigh conflicting values. Decisions such as the declaration of unconstitutionality of the Press Law in ADPF 130 reinforce the prohibition of prior censorship, while post-expression accountability, as in RE 1010606, highlights the protection of historical memory and collective interests. In Inquiry 4781, the STF demonstrates judicial activism in addressing digital disinformation, holding actors and platforms accountable for illicit practices. The study concludes that the STF has sought to consolidate a balance between freedom of expression and combating disinformation, aligning itself with contemporary theories of law and political philosophy. However, its activist stance in certain cases raises debates about the limits of its role and the impacts on legal certainty and digital governance in Brazil.
publishDate 2025
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2025-01-31
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Artigo avaliado pelos Pares
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://revistajrg.com/index.php/jrg/article/view/1850
10.55892/jrg.v8i18.1850
ark:/57118/JRG.v8i18.1850
url http://revistajrg.com/index.php/jrg/article/view/1850
identifier_str_mv 10.55892/jrg.v8i18.1850
ark:/57118/JRG.v8i18.1850
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv http://revistajrg.com/index.php/jrg/article/view/1850/1495
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Editora JRG
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Editora JRG
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv JRG Journal of Academic Studies; Vol. 8 No. 18 (2025): Revista JRG de Estudos Acadêmicos; e181850
JRG Journal of Academic Studies ; Vol. 8 Núm. 18 (2025): Revista JRG de Estudos Acadêmicos; e181850
JRG Journal of Academic Studies; V. 8 N. 18 (2025): Revista JRG de Estudos Acadêmicos; e181850
Revista JRG de Estudos Acadêmicos ; v. 8 n. 18 (2025): Revista JRG de Estudos Acadêmicos; e181850
2595-1661
ark:/57118/jrg.v8i18
reponame:Revista JRG de Estudos Acadêmicos
instname:Editora JRG
instacron:JRG
instname_str Editora JRG
instacron_str JRG
institution JRG
reponame_str Revista JRG de Estudos Acadêmicos
collection Revista JRG de Estudos Acadêmicos
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista JRG de Estudos Acadêmicos - Editora JRG
repository.mail.fl_str_mv professorjonas@gmail.com||
_version_ 1831507800849645568