O Supremo Tribunal Federal e a liberdade de expressão

• Ano de defesa: 2014
• Autor(a) principal: Simão, José Luiz de Almeida
• Orientador(a): Pinto, Felipe Chiarello de Souza
• Banca de defesa: Meyer-pflug, Samantha Ribeiro , Menezes, Daniel Francisco Nagao
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Direito Político e Econômico
• Departamento: Direito
• País: BR
• Palavras-chave em Português: estado constitucional; liberdade de expressão; STF
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: constitutional state; freedom of speech; STF
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO::DIREITO PUBLICO::DIREITO CONSTITUCIONAL
• Link de acesso: http://dspace.mackenzie.br/handle/10899/23846

It dissertation sought to investigate the reasoning used by the Supreme Court in decisions involving the fundamental principle of freedom of expression and to compare it with the theoretical model proposed by Marcelo Neves. We conclude that the Supreme Court takes the position of the judge Hydra with strong appeal to principles arguments without compromising methodological consistency and soundness of decisions. The research followed the quantitative and qualitative forms and timeframe set as the trial date "Ellwanger case", in September 2003, up to the limit of December 31, 2013. Starting point was the hypothesis that the constitutional court has a vacillating jurisprudence on the subject, not using insurance technical arguments to provide the necessary predictability to pronouncements. To achieve the proposed objective analysis of the characteristics of State Legislative and Constitutional, successful presentation of the characteristics of judges Hydra, Hercules and Iolau was performed. Then were enrolled why freedom of expression is understood as a fundamental right, as well as theories in vogue on the restriction of the right in question. The finding that the Supreme Court judge resembles the Hydra was made by analysis of three factors: the prevailing theory of restriction on a fundamental right, the constitutionality of the restriction of message content and dynamics of limiting the disclosure of matters of collective interest.