English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

EnglishThe problem of foreseeability on what speech is allowed in a specific legal system is directly related to chilling effect. That is, the cost for society of fewer opinion being expressed due to uncertainty on whether the author will later be punished. It is not merely about the role of producing precedent that will make the STF and STJ jurisprudence on the rights to speech, honor and image more predictable, but also that of generating authoritative material which increases the chances that lower courts will adopt workable precedents. The study seeks to answer the question: what are the conditions for quality of the STF and STJ performance in this role? The research problem is subdivided into four parts: i) how often do these courts rule on the matter?; ii) what is the timing of these rulings?; iii) the rulings are produced under conditions that allow judges careful and complete analysis of the facts and legal issues in the case?; iv) are the rulings issues by the STF and STJ as collegiate (full bench or chamber) bodies, according to constitutional requirement? The results indicate that the high courts deal with a workload that renders impossible any chance of analysis of the legal and constitutional law applied to the case under review. The conditions under which the judges work prevent the quality of the rulings. The courts do not decide as collegiate bodies and have instead transformed in a group of individual rulings. portuguesO problema da previsibilidade com relacao ao que e licito expressar segundo um sistema juridico vigente esta diretamente vinculado ao chilling effect. O custo para a sociedade da existencia de menos opiniao sendo expressada em razao da incerteza sobre se o autor sera punido mais tarde ou nao. Ou seja, nao se trata apenas da funcao de producao de precedentes para dar previsibilidade sobre como o STF e o STJ protegem a liberdade de expressao, honra e imagem, mas tambem de gerar material autoritativo que aumente as chances do uso de precedentes operacionalizaveis nas instâncias inferiores. O estudo busca responder a pergunta: quais as condicoes de qualidade da atuacao do STF e STJ? O problema de pesquisa e subdividido em quatro: i) com que frequencia os tribunais decidem sobre o assunto?; ii) qual o timing das decisoes?; iii) as decisoes sao tomadas em situacoes que permitam a analise atenta e completa dos fatos e questoes juridicas do caso?; e iv) as decisoes sao tomadas pelo STF e STJ como orgao colegiado pleno ou fracionario, conforme a previsao constitucional? Os resultados indicam que os tribunais superiores lidam com carga de trabalho que inviabiliza qualquer chance de uma analise do direito infraconstitucional ou constitucional aplicado ao caso concreto. As condicoes nas quais trabalham os ministros impedem a qualidade da prestacao. Os tribunais nao decidem como colegiado e transformaram-se em um conjunto de decisoes monocraticas.

A Realidade das Decisões sobre Liberdade de Expressão, Honra e Imagem no STF e no STJ