Freedom of Speech, Press Law and Hate Speech - From the Restriction as Violation to Limitation as Protection

Freedom of expression and communication is a fundamental right which forms one of the pillars of democracy, with double dimension: one, subjective and individual, which demands state abstention; and the other, objective and collective, which requires the state to fulfill a promotional role in their effectiveness. Given the important functions it carries, as well as the great influence it has on society, it should be limited by the government, to ensure material equality, human dignity and fairness of collective debate. State intervention in the media assumes ambivalent character, since it can characterize censorship, leading to denaturation of press freedom, but it can also represent the protective limitation of other constitutional values, as well as freedom of expression itself. The Law n. 5.250/67, which gave rise the oppression of every kind of manifestation of thought against the authoritarian regime established by the military dictatorship, had all of its devices declared unconstitutional by the Brazilian Supreme Court, in the midst of ADPF n. 130. One of the possible limits to press freedom consists in prohibiting hate speech, which has as main objective the offense to groups historically stigmatized by society. International human rights treaties require states to adopt measures to limit hate speech, to preserve other rights equally important. So, once observed the parameters of proportionality, hate speech should be banned for assaulting human dignity and sully the environment of public deliberation.