Inviolabilidade parlamentar frente aos discursos de ódio: uma perspectiva democrática de imunidade
Loading...
Date
2023-11
Authors
relationships.isAdvisorOf
Zanotelli, Maurício
relationships.isRefereeOf
Fröhlich, Sandro
Silva, Guilherme Augusto Pinto Da
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Em abril de 2022, o Supremo Tribunal Federal julgou a Ação Penal nº 1.044, a qual trata da condenação do Deputado Federal Daniel Silveira (PTB-RJ) pelo cometimento dos crimes de ameaça ao Estado Democrático de Direito e coação no curso do processo. Os crimes ocorreram em virtude de três vídeos publicados pelo parlamentar na plataforma do Youtube, contendo discursos de ódio e graves ameaças contra as instituições democráticas. Desse modo, com base no texto da Ação Penal nº 1.044, bem como nas bases bibliográficas referentes à temática pesquisada, o presente estudo tem como objetivo responder ao seguinte questionamento: em que medida os parlamentares, que foram eleitos democraticamente como representantes do povo, podem se utilizar do instituto da imunidade material para proferirem discursos de ódio contra as instituições democráticas? Do ponto de vista metodológico, o modo de abordagem utilizado na presente pesquisa foi o dedutivo, por estar este propriamente implicado nos propósitos almejados. Já os instrumentos técnicos utilizados foram os bibliográficos e documentais. Por fim, conclui-se que os congressistas, como representantes políticos do povo, possuem o dever de proteger e preservar a higidez do regime constitucional vigente, motivo pelo qual jamais poderão se valer da liberdade de expressão parlamentar, importante prerrogativa do Estado Democrático de Direito, para proferirem discursos de ódio contra as instituições republicanas.
In April 2022, the Federal Court of Justice judged Criminal Action No. 1,044, which deals with the conviction of Federal Deputy Daniel Silveira (PTB-RJ) for committing crimes of threat to the Democratic Rule of Law and coercion during the process. The crimes occurred due to three videos published by the parliamentarian on the YouTube platform, containing hate speech and serious threats against democratic institutions. Thus, based on the text of Criminal Action No. 1,044, as well as the bibliographical bases referring to the researched topic, the present study aims to answer the following question: to what extent can parliamentarians, who were democratically elected as representatives of the people, be able to use the institute of material immunity to make hate speeches against democratic institutions? From a methodological point of view, the approach used in the present research was deductive, as this is specifically implicated in the desired purposes. The technical instruments used were bibliographic and documentary. Finally, it is concluded that congressmen, as political representatives of the people, have the duty to protect and preserve the health of the current constitutional regime, which is why they will never be able to take advantage of freedom of parliamentary expression, an important prerogative of the Democratic Rule of Law, to deliver hate speeches against republican institutions.
In April 2022, the Federal Court of Justice judged Criminal Action No. 1,044, which deals with the conviction of Federal Deputy Daniel Silveira (PTB-RJ) for committing crimes of threat to the Democratic Rule of Law and coercion during the process. The crimes occurred due to three videos published by the parliamentarian on the YouTube platform, containing hate speech and serious threats against democratic institutions. Thus, based on the text of Criminal Action No. 1,044, as well as the bibliographical bases referring to the researched topic, the present study aims to answer the following question: to what extent can parliamentarians, who were democratically elected as representatives of the people, be able to use the institute of material immunity to make hate speeches against democratic institutions? From a methodological point of view, the approach used in the present research was deductive, as this is specifically implicated in the desired purposes. The technical instruments used were bibliographic and documentary. Finally, it is concluded that congressmen, as political representatives of the people, have the duty to protect and preserve the health of the current constitutional regime, which is why they will never be able to take advantage of freedom of parliamentary expression, an important prerogative of the Democratic Rule of Law, to deliver hate speeches against republican institutions.
Description
Keywords
Inviolabilidade parlamentar; Discursos de ódio; Liberdade de expressão; Parliamentary inviolability; Hate speeches; Freedom of expression
Citation
PRESTES, Jader. INVIOLABILIDADE PARLAMENTAR FRENTE AOS DISCURSOS DE ÓDIO: UMA PERSPECTIVA DEMOCRÁTICA DE IMUNIDADE. 2023. Artigo (Graduação) – Curso de Direito, Universidade do Vale do Taquari - Univates, Lajeado, 28 nov. 2023. Disponível em: http://hdl.handle.net/10737/4051.