Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Articles

Vol. 12 (2025): Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito

FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON THE INTERNET AND THE PROTECTION OF PERSONALITY RIGHTS IN THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DECISIONS BY THE BRAZILIAN FEDERAL SUPREME COURT AND THE GERMAN FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, POINTS OF CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE

DOI
https://doi.org/10.19092/reed.v12.965
Submitted
February 12, 2025
Published
2025-10-07

Abstract

This article presents the final results of a research that aimed to analyze, empirically and comparatively, decisions of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court, focused on cases related to freedom of speech and the protection of personality rights in the online environment, in order to verify whether it would be possible to identify a guiding principle or, in other words, a modus operandi in the interpretation of these constitutional courts regarding the proposed theme. Based on the analysis of courts’ decisions, the article concludes that the German court, in the cases examined, prioritized the protection of personality rights, whereas the Brazilian court favored freedom of speech, indicating a divergence in the approach of these courts on the issue. The article suggests that the German court leans toward the defense of personality rights, considering that in Germany and across Europe, there is already a well-established tradition of safeguarding these rights. In contrast, in Brazil, the protection of personality rights, particularly concerning personal data in the digital environment is still in its earlier stages. Furthermore, with the 1988 Federal Constitution, Brazil has seen a strong emphasis on communicative freedoms, largely as a response to the country’s end of the long dictatorial period. The data collected and systematized in the research also indicate that the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court has demonstrated a consistent tendency to prioritize freedom of speech, an understanding assumed by this court, especially, since the judgment of the paradigmatic case of ADPF 130.

References

  1. Almeida, D. dos S., & Bogossian, A. M. (2016). “Nos termos do voto do relator”: considerações acerca da fundamentação coletiva nos acórdãos do STF. Revista Estudos Institucionais, 2(1), 263-297.
  2. Bucci, M. P. D. (2013). Fundamentos para uma teoria jurídica das políticas públicas. São Paulo: Saraiva.
  3. Canotilho, J. J. G. (2003). Direito constitucional e teoria da constituição (7a ed.). Coimbra: Almedina.
  4. Costa, T. M. da. (2014). Conteúdo e alcance da decisão do STF sobre a lei de imprensa na ADPF 130. Revista de Direito GV, 10(1), 119-154.
  5. Klafke, G. F., & Pretzel, B. R. (2014). Processo decisório no Supremo Tribunal Federal: aprofundando o diagnóstico das onze ilhas. Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito, 1(1), 89-104.
  6. Martins, L. (2018). Direito processual constitucional alemão, 2ª Ed., Indaiatuba: Foco.
  7. Mendes, L. S. F. (2018). Habeas data e autodeterminação informativa: os dois lados da mesma moeda. Direitos Fundamentais & Justiça, 12(39), 185-216.
  8. Masing, J. (2012) Meinungsfreiheit und Schutz der verfassungsrechtlichen Ordnung, JZ, v. 12, p. 586-636.
  9. Nolte, G. (2017). Hate-Speech, Fake-News, das Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz und Vielfaltsicherung durch Suchmaschinen, ZUM, p. 552-565.
  10. Oliveira, F. L. (2006). Justiça, profissionalismo e política: O Supremo Tribunal Federal e o controle da constitucionalidade das leis no Brasil (1988-2003). 2006. 249 fls. Doutorado em Ciências Sociais – Centro de Educação e Ciências Humanas, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, 2006.
  11. Pestalozza, C. Verfassungsprocessrecht, 3. Auf, München: Becksche Verlag.
  12. Poscher, R. (2017). The right to data protection. In R. Miller (Ed.), Privacy and power: a transatlantic dialogue in the shadow of the NSA-Affair (pp. 129-142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Ramos, E. da S. (2015). Ativismo judicial: parâmetros dogmáticos (2a ed.). São Paulo: Saraiva.
  14. Ruaro, R. L. (2015). Privacidade e autodeterminação informativa obstáculos ao estado de vigilância? Arquivo Jurídico, 2(1), 41-60.
  15. Sachs, M. (2010). Verfassungsprocessrecht, 3. Auf, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
  16. Silva, V. A. da.. (2013). Deciding without deliberation. IJCL, 11(3), 557-584.
  17. ______. (2015). Um voto qualquer? O papel do ministro relator na deliberação no Supremo Tribunal Federal. Revista de Estudos Institucionais, 1(1), 180-200.
  18. ______. (2016). O relator dá voz ao STF? Revista de Estudos Institucionais, 2(2), 648-669.
  19. Souza, M. T. (2003). O processo decisório na constituição de 1988: práticas institucionais. Lua Nova, (58), 37-60.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.