COLLISION BETWEEN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND HATE SPEECH IN THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE SUPREME FEDERAL COURT Abrir no Google Tradutor • Feedback

Abstract

This paper examines the collision between freedom of expression and hate speech in the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), with the aim of identifying the interpretative paradigms and emerging criteria that the Court has adopted to resolve this conflict. The research adopts a qualitative methodology of bibliographic and documentary nature, with analysis of the pertinent Brazilian legislation, the jurisprudence of the STF and the specialized doctrine. The study covers the main jurisprudential frameworks, from HC No. 82.424/RS to the judgment of ADO No. 26 and the debate on article 19 of the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet, examining the criteria of harmfulness, proportionality, historical vulnerability of the target groups, institutional corrosion and incitement to violence. It also analyzes the contemporary challenges represented by the private moderation of digital platforms and disinformation as a form of political hostility. It is concluded that the STF has progressively built a model of democratic self-defense that, without denying the primacy of freedom of expression, recognizes the need for its proportional restriction when the speech threatens human dignity, equality and the structural conditions of the democratic regime.