Freedom of expression and combating disinformation: The STF and the Principle of Proportionality in post-expression accountability
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
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 |