Submitted by Rosivalda Pereira (mrs.pereira@ufma.br) on 2017-10-31T20:06:23Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Jose Rogerio de Pinho Andrade.pdf: 1654192 bytes, checksum: 3e199efb9b53aa93ecdf1a3f53236b90 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-10-31T20:06:23Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Jose Rogerio de Pinho Andrade.pdf: 1654192 bytes, checksum: 3e199efb9b53aa93ecdf1a3f53236b90 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-08-07 / This is a study about the exercise of tolerance against the speech of hate based on John Rawls‟ theory of justice. The paper aims to analyze the Federal Supreme Court decision in the Ellwanger Case under the comprehension of John Rawls‟ political philosophy. For this purpose, freedom of expression, tolerance and the speech of hatred are analyzed. Freedom of expression is discussed as a fundamental right distinguishing it from freedom of thought and information. We describe the idea of tolerance in modern society by identifying its philosophical foundation from the conceptions developed by the modern philosophers John Locke, Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, Noerberto Bobbio e John Rawls. The hate speech is conceptualized and contextualized. The conception of liberty and tolerance according to John Rawls is presented. We discuss freedom of expression, tolerance and hate speech under a legal perspective in both national and interamerican legal systems. Hate speech in Brazil is analyzed under the STF judgment of the Ellwanger case. / Estudo do exercício da tolerância frente ao discurso do ódio com fundamentos na teoria da justiça de John Rawls. O trabalho objetiva analisar a decisão do Supremo Tribunal Federal no Caso Ellwanger sob a compreensão da filosofia política de John Rawls. Para tanto, analisa-se a liberdade de expressão, a tolerância e o discurso do ódio. Descreve-se a ideia de tolerância na sociedade moderna identificando sua fundamentação filosófica a partir das concepções desenvolvidas pelos filósofos modernos John Locke, Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, Norberto Bobbio e John Rawls. Descreve-se a ideia de tolerância na sociedade moderna identificando sua fundamentação filosófica. Conceitua-se e contextualiza-se o discurso do ódio. Apresenta-se a concepção de liberdade e tolerância em John Rawls. Debate-se a liberdade de expressão, a tolerância e o discurso do ódio na perspectiva jurídica no sistema nacional e interamericano de direito. Analisa-se o discurso do ódio no Brasil sob o julgado do STF do caso Ellwanger.

Abstract is available to download.

Partant du postulat selon lequel la principale justification de la répression de formes d’expressions réside dans leur nocivité supposée, nous tentons de répondre à la question suivante : comment définir des limites claires et cohérentes à la liberté d’expression ? L’analyse des controverses relatives à la pornographie, et en particulier de la manière dont les notions de liberté d’expression et de nuisance ont été articulées, contribue à répondre à cette question générale. À travers l’analyse des débats portant sur la restriction des représentations sexuelles, nous tentons de montrer que les parties en présence ne sont pas parvenues à définir la notion de « nuisance » de manière claire et satisfaisante, et ne permettent pas, dès lors, de définir avec précision les limites légitimes de la liberté d’expression. Les deux voies théoriques alternatives que nous avons identifiées, les conceptions instrumentales et déontologiques de la liberté d’expression, ne se révèlent pas plus convaincantes. Nous montrons néanmoins qu’il est possible de préciser le principe de non-nuisance en y intégrant deux éléments auparavant négligés : la subjectivité du récepteur, et les rapports d’autorité qui existent entre le locuteur et le récepteur. Nous défendons ainsi l’idée que le principe de non-nuisance reste l’instrument le plus clair et le plus cohérent pour fonder les limites de la liberté d’expression, à condition de l’amender et de le compléter. / Acknowledging the fact that the main justification to restrict some forms of expression lies in the harm they may cause to others, this thesis aims at answering the following question: how do we define clear and coherent limits of the freedom of expression? The study of the controversies regarding pornography, and particularly the way in which the concepts of freedom of expression and harm are closely linked together, is an important contribution in order to answer this vast subject. Through the analysis of debates with regard to sexual representations, this thesis aims at gaining a deeper understanding on how the authors were unsuccessful in defining the notion of « harm » in a clear and convincing way, and fail at allowing to set precisely the legitimate limits of freedom of expression. The two alternative theoretical approaches that were identified and established - the instrumental and deontological conceptions of freedom of expression – were not proven to be more satisfactory either. However, this research confirms that the harm principle can be clarified if two previously neglected aspects are included in the analysis: the receiver’s subjectivity, and the authority relationship established between the speaker and the viewer. Thus, it is argued that the harm principle, given that it is modified and completed, remains the most effective and adequate tool in order to ground the limits of freedom of expression.

[pt] Este trabalho tem como objeto o direito à comunicação abordando, especificamente, seu exercício através da radiodifusão televisiva. Assume-se a premissa de que a concretização dos direitos e garantias tais como estabelecidos no capítulo V do título VIII da Constituição brasileira demandam a atuação de agentes reguladores, tendo sido buscados fundamentos teóricos e normativos para legitimar essa demanda. A pesquisa perfaz um breve histórico da implantação do sistema de televisão no Brasil, em paralelo com o desenvolvimento dos instrumentos legislativos que disciplinaram sua atividade. Para demonstrar a natureza democrática da regulação da comunicação televisiva, é feito um resumo dos principais instrumentos e agências internacionais que atuam no setor da radiodifusão. Complementando o estudo, foi realizada uma pesquisa bibliográfica sobre o tema da comunicação como capital e poder político, com autores contemporâneos tais como Manuel Castells, John B. Thompson, Franco Berardi, Antonio Negri e Michael Hardt. / [en] This work is about communication rights and its main focus is on television broadcast regulation.It assumes that the manifestation of the rights and guaranties of chapter V of the Brazilian Constitution demands the participation of regulatory agencies, and in this work is shown bases for it application in the norms, doctrine and theories. This work makes a brief history of the television broadcasting in Brazil, and also talks about its legal forms and norms. In order to demonstrate the democratic nature of broadcast regulationis shown a list of some communication regulation agencies and policies around the world.Complementing this research was made a bibliography on the political aspects of communication, with authors such as Manuel Castells, John B. Thompson, Franco Berardi, Antonio Negri e Michael Hardt.

The paper discusses the scientific and policy debate as to whether access to the Internet can be considered so fundamental for human interaction as to deserve a special legal protection. In particular, it examines the impact of computer-mediated communication on the realization of individual’s rights and freedoms as well as on democratization processes. It then considers how Internet content governance is posing regulatory issues directly related to the growing importance of an equitable access to digital information. In this regard, the paper looks at conflicts arising within the systems of rights and obligations attached to communication (and especially content provision) over the Internet. The paper finally concludes by identifying emerging tensions and drawing out the implications for the nature and definitions of rights (e.g. of communication and access, but also of intellectual property ownership) and for regulations and actions taken to protect, promote or qualify those rights. All these points are illustrated by a series of recent examples.

A major weakness of the literature on the regulation of freedom of expression within the field of political science is the assumption of peaceful, liberal democratic conditions. My project seeks to contribute to a better understanding of the legitimate regulation of speech by analyzing disciplinary approaches to freedom of expression through the lens of countries recovering from intractable conflict. I ask: How appropriate are current understandings of freedom of expression to the regulation of speech in post-conflict environments? Relying on insights from the field of social psychology and the case of post-genocide Rwanda, I argue that greater restrictions on freedom of expression could be legitimate in countries recovering from intractable conflict. However, rights derogations must take place within limits so as not to become a tool of authoritarian rule.

This thesis uses our lived experience of speech online to analyse the most common justification for freedom of speech: the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor. It opens with an account of a conversation in the feminist blogosphere that explicitly addressed the operation of social power in discussion. The lessons of that conversation is compared to accounts of the marketplace of ideas metaphor offered by theorists like Sunstein, Fiss, and Boyd White, as well as more internet-oriented theorists like Lessig, Benkler and Balkin. From that, and building on the insights of critics like Fraser and Mansbridge, the thesis argues that we ought to reject the "liberal-economic" paradigm of the function of speech and deliberation in a democracy, and proposes that we replace the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor with that of a "critical democratic culture." The thesis concludes by illustrating the usefulness of that new metaphor through the example of hate speech.

This thesis uses our lived experience of speech online to analyse the most common justification for freedom of speech: the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor. It opens with an account of a conversation in the feminist blogosphere that explicitly addressed the operation of social power in discussion. The lessons of that conversation is compared to accounts of the marketplace of ideas metaphor offered by theorists like Sunstein, Fiss, and Boyd White, as well as more internet-oriented theorists like Lessig, Benkler and Balkin. From that, and building on the insights of critics like Fraser and Mansbridge, the thesis argues that we ought to reject the "liberal-economic" paradigm of the function of speech and deliberation in a democracy, and proposes that we replace the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor with that of a "critical democratic culture." The thesis concludes by illustrating the usefulness of that new metaphor through the example of hate speech.

Thesis (doctoral) - Universität, Mainz, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references and index.

Teisė į saviraiškos laisvę suteikia žmogui galimybę reikšti savo turimus įsitikinimus ir idėjas. Nors šiai teisei suteikiama ypatinga teisinė apsauga tiek Lietuvos, tiek tarptautiniuose teisiniuose dokumentuose, ji nėra absoliuti ir gali būti ribojama, siekiant apsaugoti kitų žmonių teises ir laisves bei kitus svarbius interesus. Pusiausvyros suradimas tarp kitų įstatymų saugomų vertybių ir nuomonės reiškimos laisvės yra svarbus kiekvienos valstybės teisinės sistemos uždavinys. Šio uždavinio įgyvendinime yra svarbu nustatyti tam tikrų nuomonės reiškimo laisvės sąlygų ribojimo būtinumą demokratinėje visuomenėje. Dažnai žmonės viešai reikšdami savo nuomonę pateikia tam tikrų faktų ir dalykų vertinimą, bet savo vertinimui nepateikia įrodymų, faktų, kad kiti žmonės galėtų įsitikinti jų vertinimų teisingumu. Jeigu tokia nuomonė nepažeidžia kitų įstatymuose saugomų vertybių, ji yra leidžiama. Nuomonių ir idėjų pliuralizmo egzistavimas visuomenėje yra ypač svarbus išreiškiant politinę kritiką, todėl nuomonių ribojimas, reikalaujant jas pagrįsti faktais, kliudytų išlaikyti demokratijos tęstinumą, nes žmonės vengtų reikšti savo nuomonę svarbiais visuomeninio gyvenimo klausimais. Nuomonės yra subjektyvūs vertinimai ir kurioms, skirtingai nei žiniai, nėra taikomas tiesos kriterijus. Kadangi nuomonės yra nepatikrinamos ir nuomonių įrodinėti nėra privaloma, negalima reikalauti ir jų paneigimo. Reikalavimas nuomonę pagrįsti faktais ar kitais įrodymais būtų saviraiškos laisvės suvaržymas... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Freedom of expression is one of the fundamental human rights. People can express themselves not only in private, but also in public and social life. This right is guaranteed in the constitutions of many states, international human rights and other legal documents. Exceptional legal protection for freedom of expression is justified because of it’s importance for maintaining stability of democracy. One of the main element of freedom of expression is the right to hold opinions without interference. The right to hold opinions allows people to express their views, beliefs and ideas verbally or in writing. Journalists, politicians and other society members can realize this right especially in the media, where their opinions reach many people. It is important that person who realizes his/her right in public to hold opinions, would not violate the rights of other people. When people express their opinions in public, they mostly express value – judgements about some facts. Often they don’t explain, why do they think so, don’t give some facts that could prove truth of their statements. Can always be allowed the opinion that is not grounded on facts? The main goal of this work is to establish, weather the human right to freedom of expression allows in public to express opinion that is not grounded on facts. Freedom of expression, as the right to hold opinions, is not absolute. Because of the conflict between the right to hold opinions and other rights, the right to hold opinions can be... [to full text]