Freedom of expression and regulation of digital platforms: analysis of legal projects in the Chamber of Deputies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2965-7474.v1i6p%25pKeywords:
Freedom of Expression, Digital Platforms, Regulation, Bill, Chamber of DeputiesAbstract
The article consists of an analysis of the justifications of legislative proposals presented to the Chamber of Deputies that deal with the regulation of freedom of expression in the digital environment. The time frame defined for the study ranges from February 1, 2023 to June 10, 2025. The objective is to analyze how the federal deputies deal with the issue and in what terms or limit the constitutional right to freedom of expression and purpose when dealing with the digital environment. The analysis is preceded by a discussion on the freedom of expression and its emergence in modern theory and the implications of the platform of society on this issue. The methodology consists of Content Analysis of the justifications of 90 legislative proposals by means of the IraMuteQ textual analysis software using Descending Hierarchical Classification. The analysis is based on the regulatory approaches to the digital environment proposed by Jack Balkin and Julie Cohen. The result shows a fastening of the legislative proposals of a regulation idea based on technical architecture, algorithmic governance and state-platform-user interaction, more focused on content and punitive issues and also focused on groups, such as children and adolescents.
Downloads
References
BALKIN, Jack M. Digital speech and democratic culture: a theory of freedom of expression for the information society. New York University Law Review, v. 79, n. 1, 2004. Disponível em: <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=470842>. Acesso em: 01 jul. 2025.
BALKIN, Jack M. The future of free expression in a digital age. Pepperdine Law Review, v. 36, n. 2, p. 427–444, 2009. Disponível em: <https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol36/iss2/9/>. Acesso em: 01 jul. 2025.
BALKIN, Jack M. Information fiduciaries and the First Amendment. UC Davis Law Review, v. 49, n. 4, p. 1183–1234, 2016. Disponível em: <https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/4692/49_U.C._Davis_Law_Review_1183__2016_.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y>. Acesso em: 01 jul. 2025.
BALKIN, Jack M. Free speech in the algorithmic society: big data, private governance, and new school speech regulation. UC Davis Law Review, v. 51, n. 3, p. 1149–1210, 2018a. Disponível em: <https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk15026/files/media/documents/51-3_Balkin.pdf>. Acesso em: 01 jul. 2025.
BALKIN, Jack M. Free speech is a triangle. Columbia Law Review, v. 118, p. 2011–2054, 2018b. Disponível em: <https://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Balkin-FREE_SPEECH_IS_A_TRIANGLE.pdf?ref=luatkhoa.com>. Acesso: 01 jul. 2025.
BALKIN, Jack M. The fiduciary model of privacy. Harvard Law Review Forum, v. 134, p. 11–23, 2020. Disponível em: <https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/134-Harv.-L.-Rev.-F.-11.pdf>. Acesso em: 01 jul. 2025.
CASTELLS, Manuel. Ruptura: a crise da democracia liberal. 1ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2018.
COHEN, Julie E. Examined lives: Informational privacy and the subject as object. Stanford Law Review, v. 52, n. 5, p. 1373–1438, mai/2000. Disponível em: <https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/810>. Acesso em: 28 jun. 2025.
COHEN, Julie E. What privacy is for. Harvard Law Review, v. 126, 2013, p. 1904-1933. Disponível em: <https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-126/what-privacy-is-for/>. Acesso em: 01 jul. 2025.
COHEN, Julie E. Between truth and power – the legal constructions of informational capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.
DIJCK José; POELL Thomas; WAAL, Martijn. The Platform Society: public values in a connective world. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.
LEVITSKY, Steven; ZIBLATT, Daniel. Como as democracias morrem. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2018.
PÁDUA, Felipe B. S. O paradoxo da tolerância na democracia: ensaio sobre uma forma de resposta e a busca por uma democracia inclusiva dialogal. Direitos Democráticos & Estado Moderno, v. 3, n. 12, 2024, p. 64-82.
STF. STF define parâmetros para responsabilização de plataformas por conteúdos de terceiros. STF, 2025. Disponível em: <https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/stf-define-parametros-para-responsabilizacao-de-plataformas-por-conteudos-de-terceiros/>. Acesso em: 04 jul. 2025.
STF. Reconhecimento da inconstitucionalidade parcial e progressiva do art. 19 do MCI. STF, s. d. Disponível em: <https://noticias-stf-wp-prd.s3.sa-east-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/wpallimport/uploads/2025/06/26205223/MCI_tesesconsensuadas.pdf>. Acesso em: 04 jul. 2025.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Interface Communication Review

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.