Leo Lins like this: “Is there a human being that is not 100% human. The northeastern of the plane? 72%.” “How am I going to lose weight? ‘ Taking AIDS! You don’t love to eat everything? He was sentenced to arrest, fine and compensation. Brazil has law against discrimination. But Leo Lins uses humorist badge. So, he says, he can hunt laughing at any trifle.
He sued two journalists by a report that described investigation of the purchase by the government of Mato Grosso, from a university from which the minister was a partner. Defeated in the first and second instances, he won in the STJ.
Ministers Ricardo Cueva, Humberto Martins, Daniela Teixeira, Moura Ribeiro and Nancy Andrighi condemned a magazine to pay $ 150,000. They claim “excess of irony”, “limits of the right to inform”. They highlight the “honor of a public authority” and teach that freedom of expression is not confused with “irresponsibility of affirmation.”
Judge Iris Helena Nogueira sued a journalist who released wages from magistrates. In April 2023, she would have been the champion when she received $ 662,000. Judge Káren Bertoncello of R $ 600 thousand. He said that despite being public information, he was decontextualized and had a sensational effect. Defended balance between the right to inform and moral integrity.
Each new decision on uses of freedom of expression causes the public sphere to give their opinion on its error or hit. Until the next case comes and we start to give their opinion, with indignation, surprise or relief, about their error or hit.
And so we are spending time on the passionate retail of the case and we lost sight of a preliminary issue. We know that, but the judiciary shows no interest or ability to define where it is. Much less in stabilizing this limit consistently.
The jurisprudence of freedom of expression has very little “juris” and “prudence”. We call thus by vocabulary addiction and attachment to conceptual illusionism. Attached, it is clear that decisions on the subject have been limited to the formula of “I think so, I don’t think so,” as the heart dates.
Phrases of effect replace decision -making criteria, rushed instinct replaces analysis of the nuances of the specific case. In this rhetorical festival of a pile of decisions that do not dialogue, the same slogans underlie acquit or punishment. Without understanding why the difference.
As long as there is no sincere attempt to build shared criteria and predictability, the judiciary will continue to simulate protect rights while delivering us to irrational, discriminatory and arbitrary particularism. “Each case is a case” and “every head a sentence” are maximum of decisionism. With such judicial practice, freedom disappears.
We know very little about what we can say. In the field of absolute uncertainty, freedom is too risky.
Another service that is to provide the autocratic project: the absolute unpredictability of the meaning of freedom of expression facilitates the life of those who invoke it to attack democracy and violate rights. An empty concept is easier to manipulate. It is cheaper to scream for freedom.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
