The popularization of social media opened the door of the internet to the grave and increasing problem of hate speech, which isn’t as such a new challenge for society, politics and Law. But, as widely known, due to the porosity of the boarders and the huge impact caused by the acceleration of the speed of any kind of posting and sharing on the internet, hate speech became a worldwide phenomenon, reinforcing the urgent need for adequate regulation, prevention and interdiction, something to be faced by Law and the institutions at the domestic and transnational level. One of the major challenges is to find the proper balancing between the fundamental freedom of expression and the protection of human dignity, as well as the fight against any kind of intolerance. The goal of the paper is to analyze the problem in light of the European Court of Human Rights case law, the example of the recently enacted German Network Enforcement Act and the Brazilian constitutional order.
Digital inheritance is the set of data, digital assets which, are digitized assets stored in the cloud. There is a demand for new forms of personality rights and inheritance rights that encompass the notion of virtual personality and digital inheritance. Digital legacy is framed in a classification of goods that cannot by economically valued and of goods that can be economically valued. The former would have a predominantly affective value and the rest an undeniable economic value due to the direct possibility of their monetization. In spite of the so alled civil framework for the Internet in Brazil, there are still some legislative gaps involving both personality and virtual inheritance. However, since there is no specific regulation in Brazil, the simple application of inheritance rights to the digital universe affects both the personality rights sphere and some of the most valuable rights and principles guaranteed by the Constitution.
The right to be forgotten is achieving recognition as a genuine fundamental right. If, in some legal arenas, it is consecrated ex novum, in others it is inferred from previous constitutional rights and principles (such as self-determination, private life, image, honor and human dignity). Yet, the conceptualization of freedom of expression and of privacy differs greatly in both sides of the Atlantic: The United States of America versus the European states. Echoing these differences, it is interesting to learn the crescendo dynamic of jurisprudential protection of the right to be forgotten amongst supreme courts: Supreme Court of the United States (minimalism); European Court of Human Rights (intermediate approach) and Court of Justice of the European Union (maximalism).