BALANCING, PROPORTIONALITY AND THE “ONE RIGHT ANSWER” IN THE ARGUMENTATIVE PRACTICE OF THE BRAZILIAN SUPREME COURT - SEVERAL PATHS TO NORMATIVE CORRECTION? THE CASE OF HATE SPEECH

Autores

Palavras-chave:

Balancing, One-right-answer, Fundamental Rights, Constitutional Interpretation

Resumo

The axiological theory of fundamental rights reached in the last decades great academic and institutional repercussion in Latin America, including Brazil. It is commonly called a ‘post-positivist’ theory but, by rejecting Dworkin's thesis of ‘the one right answer’ it maintains elements that, as we argue, are typical of legal positivism. We herein discuss if, in light of a deontological theory of rights a correct decision would be possible, even if based on axiological terms of value-weighting. The rationale for a decision expressed in terms of conflicts of rights reduces the indispensability of fundamental rights. We argue, however, that this does not, of itself, prevent the decision taken from being correct. We use as an example the decision in which the Brazilian Supreme Court discussed whether the constitutional provision that no statute of limitations applies to the crime of racism could be extended to the publication of anti-Semitic hate speeches. Referring to the ideas of balancing and proportionality the court concluded that, under Brazilian law, anti-Semitic hate speech constitutes the crime of racism. We maintain that such a decision proves to be the only correct one under Brazilian Law in the deontological sense. Despite the argumentative damage brought to the internal debate of the courts on the role of fundamental rights, such decisions can nevertheless be able to discern, in the concrete cases, the legitimate from the abusive claims, so as to enable the Law to consistently confront the tendency to abusive and merely instrumental use of the Law itself.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Métricas

Carregando Métricas ...

Biografia do Autor

Guilherme Scotti, Universidade de Brasília, UnB, Brasil.

Professor Associado de Teoria e Filosofia do Direito da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Brasília - UnB. Mestre e Doutor em Direito, área de concentração “Direito, Estado e Constituição”, pela Universidade de Brasília - UnB. E-mail: mgscotti@unb.br

Menelick de Carvalho Netto, Universidade de Brasília, UnB, Brasil.

Doutor em Direito pela Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) em 1990. É Professor Associado da Universidade de Brasília - UnB

E-mail: menelickcnetto@gmail.com 

Referências

ALEXY, Robert. Sistema jurídico, principios jurídicos y razón práctica. Doxa, n. 5, 1988.

ALEXY, Robert. Teoria de los derechos fundamentales. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, 1993.

ALEXY, Robert. On the Structure of Legal Principles. Ratio Juris, v. 13, n. 3, p. 294-304, 2000.

BERLIN, Isaiah. Liberty: Incorporating four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

BRASIL. HC 82424/RS. Habeas Corpus. Publicação de livros: anti-semitismo. Crime imprescritível. Conceituação. Abrangência constitucional. Limites. Ordem denegada. Relator orig.: Min. Moreira Alves. Relator para o acórdão: Min. Maurício Corrêa. , Supremo Tribunal Federal, 2003.

CATTONI, Marcelo. Direito, política e filosofia: contribuições para uma teoria discursiva da constituição democrática no marco do patriotismo constitucional. Rio de Janeiro, 2007.

CHUEIRI, Vera K. Before the law: Philosophy and Literature (the Experience of that Which one cannot Experience). Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science, New York, New School University, Ph.D.: f. 216, 2004.

DWORKIN, Ronald. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977.

DWORKIN, Ronald. Is Democracy Possible Here?: Principles for a New Political Debate. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2006.

DWORKIN, Ronald. Justice in Robes. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2006.

DWORKIN, Ronald. Justice for Hedgehogs. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011.

FERRARA, Francesco. Interpretação e aplicação das leis. Coimbra: Arménio Amado, 1963.

GREENE, Jamal. Foreword: Rights as trumps? Harvard Law Review, v. 132, n. 1, pp. 28-132, 2018.

GÜNTHER, Klaus. The sense of Appropriateness: Application Discourses in Morality and Law. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993.

HABERMAS, Jürgen. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Translated by William Rehg. MIT Press, 1996.

HABERMAS, Jürgen. Consciência moral e agir comunicativo, Trad. Guido A. de Almeida. Rio de Janeiro: Tempo Brasileiro, 2003.

HESSE, Konrad. Die normative Kraft der Verfassung: Freiburger Antrittsvorlesung. Mohr, 1959.

KRIELE, Martin. Introducción a la teoría del Estado. Buenos Aires: De Palma, 1980.

MENDES, Gilmar. F. Direitos fundamentais e controle de constitucionalidade: estudos de direito constitucional. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2004.

MOUFFE, Chantal. Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism?. Social Research, v. 66, n. 3, p. 745-758, 1999.

ROSENFELD, Michel. The Identity of The constitutional Subject: Selfhood, Citizenship, Culture and Community. Routledge, NY, 2010.

Revista Direito.UnB | Janeiro - Abril, 2022, V. 06, N. 1

Downloads

Publicado

2022-04-29

Como Citar

RODRIGUES, G. S.; DE CARVALHO NETTO, M. BALANCING, PROPORTIONALITY AND THE “ONE RIGHT ANSWER” IN THE ARGUMENTATIVE PRACTICE OF THE BRAZILIAN SUPREME COURT - SEVERAL PATHS TO NORMATIVE CORRECTION? THE CASE OF HATE SPEECH. Direito.UnB - Revista de Direito da Universidade de Brasília, [S. l.], v. 6, n. 1, p. 19–38, 2022. Disponível em: https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/revistadedireitounb/article/view/41715. Acesso em: 13 ago. 2022.