The Public Law against the propagation of extremist discourses. Challenges to freedom of expression and learning from the European experience

The social networks of the Internet have multiplied the impact in society of discourses of an offensive and hurtful nature, increasing the concern regarding hate speech. The paper asks a series of questions based on the doctrine on the subject and the legal responses, both normative and jurisdictional, that have been adopted by some European countries, such as Germany and Spain, in which a repressive approach is chosen, as well as supranational institutions such as the European Commission and the Council of Europe, which propose alternative measures. Finally, as a relevant aspect, a normative and action approach of the public authorities, national and international, is proposed, which will face the new challenges of extreme discourses from the protection of human rights. It is proposed to give greater emphasis to the objective dimension of freedom of expression, as well as to incorporate content of a prestational nature, from which rights derive to positive actions.

Sexualized Speech About Religion in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

This paper claims that whether or not speech about religion is sexualized is a very good predictor of whether the European Court of Human Rights will allow it to be restricted or punished under national law. Thus, for example, the recent controversial case of E.S. v. Austria involved the suggestion that Mohammed was a pedophile, Wingrove v U.K. that St. Teresa of Avila imagined orgies with the crucified Christ and another woman, Otto Preminger Institute v. Austria that Mary the mother of Jesus was a slut, I.A. v. Turkey that “Mohammed did not forbid sexual relations with a dead person or a live animal.” By contrast other negative statements about religion (e.g. that Christian anti-semitism led to the holocaust) are more often held to be protected speech.

Fake Democracies: Democracy Undermined by Fake News

Occidental democracies had been consolidated after the II World War, and have been reasonably stables since that time. However, technological advances allowed the rise of new ways of democratic participation, demanding a revision of current theoric and structural categories. Internet became an useful tool of social participation in many countries, but also the closest enemies of democracy have been updated by Internet. Social medias allow the massive and fast sharing of informations, being able to damage the democracy by the spread of fake News in electoral campaigns. One of the main elements for the healthy democratic environment, the access to high quality informations, is undermined by fake News. The investigation’s object, through the hipothetical-deductive method, is how to treat the menaces caused by fake News in electoral periods; rethink the structure of democracy in order to suppress or reduce the effects of this new threat, is fundamental for the Public Law in changing times.


The paper discusses an important case by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The decision in 1952 confronts the post-World War II external and internal political-social problems, as well as, in material respects, issues concerning the individual rights of free expression, the exercise of professorship and free belief. As for the formal aspects, the analyzes on open standards, the sovereignty of the States and the limits of the state power. The Supreme Court Judgment resulted in the dismissal of 378 elementary and middle school teachers, only in New York City, for reasons of their political beliefs, in a period considered by a true “witch-hunt “and stemming from “McCarthyism” initiated by Senator Joseph H. MacCarthy. The case will be analyzed in that historical context, in the procedural unfolding until the judgment by the SCOTUS, its consequences and the correspondence with the movement of the “school without party”, a political proposal for Brazilian education.

Disciplining Free Expression and The Rise of Authoritarianism in Indonesia

Discourse of authoritarianism in Indonesia’s 20 years post Soeharto has been rising. The discourse has been shaped by the role of the state which had been involving in hijacking democracy and silencing free expression. While on the other side, stronger supporter of a conservative and anti-pluralistic brand of political Islam which increasingly open repression and disempowerment of political opposition.
Heufers (2017) calls as authoritarian populist, while Power (2018) emphasized on Jokowi’s authoritarian turn and Indonesia’s democratic decline. I would argue differently in adding their works, which I call as neo-authoritarianism in Indonesia. These affect to human rights situation in the country, although in the early years of Reformation changed dramatically from one of cautious optimism to something which currently may be described as desperate. This paper unravels the turn of authoritarianism from the specific cases related to free expression, academic freedom and press freedom.

Case Brown v. Plata: mass incarceration in California.

In this article, it is analyzed the phenomenon of mass incarceration and its pernicious consequences in the prison system of California. In this bias, it is sought to understand the punitive expansionism and its destructive effect in the American prison system, notably Californian, exteriorized by a massive incarceration and chronic structures failures in the penitentiary system, starting from the paradigm inaugurated by modernity that radically changed the social, economic relations and power in American continent, making comparison with Brazilian prison reality. In that way, it is uncovered the influential elements in the crisis of the penitentiary system of the state of California, verified in the late twentieth and early twentieth century, which opened the scourges of the American penitentiary system, seen as a degrading space and generator of systemic violation of the inmates’ rights. Finally, it is proposed to alter radically this scenario, through the adoption of effective and etiological measures, non-popular and non-electoral,  to humanize the prison or at least to this reach tolerable standards.