FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ON THE INTERNET AND THE PROTECTION OF OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Ementa
Freedom of expression: an absolute right? The American vision of freedom of expression: New York v.
Sullivan; “The slants” case; The European vision of freedom of Expression: A more restrictive approach? The Brazilian Vision: The Ellwanger Case and the protection against racism in Brazilian Supreme Court rule. Freedom of expression on the Internet; The technological structure of the Internet and It’s regulation: The “Cyberanarchy” and the regulation by the “Code”; A normative approach (1): American regulation -Notice and takedown; A normative approach (1): The European regulation – some excepcionalities; A normative approach (3): Brazilian Internet’s “civil rights” law; Between freedom of expression and illegal conducts; Non consented Pornography (Article 21, Brazilian Internet’s “civil rights” law); Hate speech (1): concept and contractual treatment; Hate speech (2): Racism and other illegal conducts; Hate speech (3): homophobia, cyberbullying; Legal responses: the notice and takedown rule and its critics; Technological responses: content filter, artificial intelligence and censorship.
Bibliografia
ACKERMAN, Bruce. We the people: foundations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991. ALVAREZ,
Michael R.; HALL, Trad E. Eletronic Elections: the perils and promises of digital democracy. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2008. AVRITZER, Leonardo. New public spheres in Brazil: local democracy and deliberative politics. in DIREITO GV Especial 1 p. 055-074 2005. Disponível em: http://direitosp.fgv.br/sites/direitosp.fgv.br/files/rdgv_esp01_p055_074.pdf. Acesso em: 07 fev. 2015.
BARLOW, John Perry. A declaration of independence of cyberspace. Davos, Suíça 1996. Disponível em: https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html. Acesso em 13 abr. 2018.
BARLOW, John Perry. A declaration of independence of cyberspace. Davos, Suíça 1996. Disponível em: https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html. Acesso em 13 mai. 2015.
BEÇAK, Rubens ; LONGHI, João Victor Rozatti. Trends for participatory democracy: the influence of the Internet in the profile of political representation and on the participatory budgeting. Analele Universitatii Bucuresti. Drept, v. 60, 2012, p. 154164.
BEÇAK, Rubens; LONGHI, João Victor Rozatti. Internet as a public sphere and the current role of the Parliament. in Anais do World Association of Constitutional Law Conference. WCCL: Oslo, 2014. http://www.jus.uio.no/english/research/news-and-events/events/conferences/2014/wccl-cmdc/wccl/papers/ws8/w8-becak-longhi.pdf. Acesso em: 15 jun. 2015.
BENKLER, Yochai. The wealth of networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom. New Heaven: Yale University Press, 2006.
CASTELLS, Manuel. La galaxia Internet. Trad. Raúl Quintana. Barcelona: Aretè, 2001. CITRON, Danielle Keats. Cyber Civil Rights (December 18, 2008). Boston University Law Review, Vol. 89, pp. 61-125, 2009.
DWORKIN, Ronald. Justice for the hedgehogs. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011. FRASER, Nancy; HONNETH, Axel. Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. London: Verso, 2003.
FRASER, Nancy. Scales of Justice: reimagining political justice in a globalizing world. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010.
HINDMAN, Matthew. The myth of digital democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.
JOHNSON, Brett. The Free Speech Balancing Act of Digital Intermediaries: an explication of the concept of content governance. University of Minesotta. Minneapolis. Adviser: Amy Kristin Sanders.
(Dissertation).2015. Disponível em:
http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/175194/Johnson_umn_0130E_16048.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Acesso em: 24 dez. 2015.
KEEN, Andrew. The internet is not the answer. London: Atlantic books, 2015.
LESSIG, Lawrence. Code 2.0. New York: Basic Books, 2006. LESSIG, Lawrence. Republic, lost: how money corrupts the Congress and a plan to stop it. Ebook: Creative Commons, 2.011.
LEVINSON, Sanford. Constitutional Faith. Paperback reissue with a new afterword. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.
MAYER-SCHÖNBERGER, Viktor; CUKIER, Kenneth. Big data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Boston/New York: Eamon Dollar Book, 2013. PARISER, Eli. O filtro invisível: o que a Internet está escondendo de você. Trad. Diego Alfaro de “Filter bubble: what the Internet is hiding from you”. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2012.
PATEMAN, Carole. Participatory Democracy revisited. in Perspectives on Politics Cambridge: Cambridge Journals, 2012.
SUNSTEIN, Cass. The second bill of rights: FDR’s unfinished revolution and why we need it more than ever. New York: Perseus books, 2004.
SUNSTEIN, Cass R. A constitution of many minds why the founding document doesn’t mean what it meant before Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.
SUNSTEIN, Cass R. Republic 2.0. Princeton, PUP, 2007.
SUNSTEIN, Cass.Democracy and the problem of free speech. New York: Free Press, 1995. SUNSTEIN, Cass. Going to Extremes:
How Like Minds Unite and Divide. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
SUNSTEIN, Cass. HOLMES, Stephen. The cost of rights: why liberty depend on taxes. New York: W. W. Norron & Company 1999.
SUNSTEIN, Cass. Radical in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America. New York: Basic Books, 2005.
SUNSTEIN, Cass. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.
TUSHNET, Mark. The constitution of the United States of America: a contextual analysis. Hart Publising: Portland, 2009.
VAIDHYANATHAN, Siva. The googlization of everything (and why should we worry). Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011. VOLOKH, Eugene; FALK, Donald M. Google first amendment protection for search engine results. Journal of Law Economics & Politics. 883 (2012). VOLOKH, Eugene. Freedom of speech and of the press. in MEESE III, Edward (Ed.) The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. 2. ed. fully revised.
Washington (DC): Regnery Publishing, 2014.
WALDRON, Jeremy the harm in hate speech. Harvard University Press: 2012. WHITMAN, James Q. The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty. in Yale Law Journal vol. 113. N. 1151 (2004).
ZELNICK, Bob; ZELNICK, Eva. The illusion of net neutrality: political alarmism, regulatory creep and the real threat to Internet freedom. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 2013.
ZITTRAIN, Jonathan. The future of Internet and how to stop it. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2008.
WALDRON, Jeremy. Dignity and defamation: the visibility of hate. (2009 Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures) in Harvard law review. 2010. vol. 123. fasc. 7.
INSTITUTIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND DEMOCRACY
Ementa
Course objectives: a) to familiarize students with the main contemporary constitutional theory debate; b) to cultivate them the ability to identify latent constitutional issues; c) to equip them with the intellectual tools necessary to properly conceptualize and analyze constitutional issues; d) to foster the English scientific reading, argumentation and writing. The purpose of classroom discussion is to develop analytical and oral argument skills, in English (at least an intermediate level). It will also be important to develop the ability to listen carefully and to respond to the arguments of others. To encourage the development of these skills, every student subject to being on call will be expected to have read the assignment and to participate on the basis of these readings. In addition, students will be asked to respond to the claims and arguments of others and occasionally to provide counter--‐arguments even when it is not an argument that you necessarily support. The classroom activities will be based on interactive and participatory method; there will be no professor expository class. In every meeting, selected students will present the main topics of the text and then will start the discussion by the proposing internal and external criticism to the text. The professor main role will be to facilitate the discussion, cultivate a friendly environment and highlight the problems around the issue in debate. The success of the course depends upon a strong level of participation
Bibliografia
2- LATIN AMERICA AND SOCIAL RIGHTS - GARGARELLA, Roberto. Too much “old” in the “new” Latin
American constitutionalism. - RODRIGUEZ-GUARAVITO, Cesar. Beyond the Courtroom: The Impact of
Judicial Activism on Socioeconomic Rights in Latin America.
3 - COURTS, JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND POLITICAL CONSTITUTIONALISM 3.1) HIRSCHL, Ran. The Judicialization of Mega-Politics and the Rise of Political Courts, 11 Annual Review of Political Science 93–118 (2008) - TUSHNET, Mark. Alternative Forms of Judicial Review. Michigan Law Review, v. 101, p. 2781– 2802, 2003. 3.2) BELLAMY, Richard. Political constitutionalism and the Human Rights Act. International Journal of Constitutional Law, v. 09, n. 01,
- GOLDONI, Marco. Two internal critiques of political constitutionalism. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 10 (4). pp. 926-949, 2013.
4 - PROPORTIONALITY - ELIYA-COHEN, Moshe; PORAT, Iddo. Proportionality and the Culture of Justification. - KUMM, Mattias. The idea of socratic contestation and the right do justification: the point of rightsbases proportionality review. Law and Ethics of Human Rights, v. 4, nº 2, 2010.
5 - LEGISLATIVE AND LEGISLATION - WALDRON, Jeremy. Representative Lawmaking. In: WALDRON, Jeremy. Political Political Theory. Harvard University Press, 2016. - WALDRON, Jeremy. Principles of Legislation. In: WALDRON, Jeremy. Political Political Theory. Harvard University Press, 2016.
6 - CONSTITUTIONALISM AND CONSTITUENT POWER 6.1) - KALYVAS, Andreas. Popular
Sovereignty, Democracy, and the Constituent Power. Constellations, v. 12, nº 2, 2005. - BENVINDO, Juliano Zaiden. The Seeds of Change: Popular Protests as Constitutional Moments. Marquette Law Review, vol. 99 (2), 2015, 364-426. 6.2) - LANDAU, David. Abusive Constitutionalism. U.C.D. L. Rev, v. 47, n. 189, p. 189– 260, 2013. - ALBERT, Richard. Nonconstitutional Amendments. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, v. XXII, nº 1, 2009.
7 - BRAZILIAN DEBATE - SILVA, Virgílio Afonso. Deciding without Deliberating. International Journal of Constitutional Law, v. 11, n. 3, pp. 557-584, 2013. - MACEDO JUNIOR, Ronaldo Porto. Freedom of Expression: what lessons should we learn from US experience?. Rev. direito GV, Apr 2017, vol.13, no.1, p.274-302. - TEIXEIRA, Sonia Maria Fleury; PINHO, Carlos Eduardo Santos. Authoritarian Governments and the Corrosion of the Social Protection Network in Brazil. Rev. katálysis, Jan 2018, vol.21, no.1, p.29- 42.
TOPICS OF COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Ementa
The relevance of comparative constitutional law, especially in the judicial forum, has been a longstanding source of debate. Even between jurisdictions sharing the same legal tradition, the judicial use of comparative law has been repeatedly criticized on grounds related to the widely differing characteristics of the jurisdictions being compared. In our challenging time, characterized by new and contrasting trends – of which globalization and the crisis of sovereignty are the most emblematic – the comparative constitutional scholar is vested with a particular and fundamental task: to better understand such profound transformations of our contemporary systems, and tentatively predict their evolution, looking at the future with a full awareness of the past.
Bibliografia
Tópicos:
1) Why Compare? HIRSCHL, Ran. The Renaissance of Comparative Constitutional Law. Oxford, 2014.
VON BOGDANDY. Armin. COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AS A SOCIAL SCIENCE?
A HEGELIAN REACTION TO RAN HIRSCHL‘S COMPARATIVE MATTERS. MPIL RESEARCH PAPER SERIES No. 2016-09
2) Constitution-Making and Constitutional Change ARATO, Andrew. Conventions, Constituent Assemblies, and Round Tables: Models, principles and elements of democratic constitutionmaking. Global Constitutionalism, 2012. DIXON, Rosalind. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RULES:
A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE. CHICAGO PUBLIC LAW AND LEGAL THEORY WORKING PAPER 347.
3) Constitutional Courts: Law vs Politics BAXI, Upendra. “The Avatars of Indian Judicial Activism: Explorations in the Geographies of Injustice”, in S.K. Verma and Kusum [eds.] Fifty Years of the Supreme Court of India: Its Grasp and Reach. New Delhi. 2000.
Oscar Vilhena, Upendra Baxi and Frans Viljoen (editors).
Transformative constitutionalism: Comparing the apex courts of Brazil, India and South Africa, 2013.
4) Federalism and Constitutional Design Cass R. Sunstein. Constitutionalism and Secession. The University of Chicago Law Review. LouiseTillin. United in Diversity? Asymmetry in Indian Federalism. Publius: The Journal of Federalism volume 37 number 1, pp. 45.
