By Rafael Torres – Criminal Lawyer – Brazil.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental right inserted in the Constitutions and, as well as every other right, is not absolute. The referred term is not reduced to expressing sensations or externalizing emotions. It embraces freedom of thought, which is restricted to inner parts of people, as well as the manifestation of sensations. Following this train of thought, ARCHIBALD COX, when making a comment about the American Bill of Rights, said [about freedom of speech]: “The thinking man or woman, of sensations, the novelist, the poet or playwright, the artist, and specially the religious certainly consider the denial of freedom of expression as the as the greatest affront that can be imposed on their condition as human beings”.
It follows that freedom of expression is a generic right that encompasses a multitude of forms and related rights, and that it cannot be defined as a simple externalization of sensations or intuitions, with the absence of elementary intellectual activity, to the extent that it comprises itself. Among the related rights presented in the topic of freedom of expression, the following can be enlisted here: freedom of manifestation of thought; of communication; of information; of access to information; of opinion; of the press, of the media, of the dissemination and broadcasting.
One cannot forget its outcome in a collective dimension, given that freedom of expression also encompasses third parties. In this line of thought, JOHN STUART MILL, when commenting about freedom, warned us: “The freedom to express and communicate opinions may seem to fit into a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the individual’s conduct that concerns other people”.
In fact, it is correct that the mastership of NUNO E SOUZA, for whom “freedom of information has a juridical-collective dimension, linked to public opinion and to the functioning of the democratic State, and a juridical-individual component; it protects the legitimate interest of the individual to be informed in order to develop his personality; not only does the democratic principle explain such freedom, but it also relegates the principle of human dignity”.
Talking about Comparative Law, we have that the American Convention of Human Rights, in the face of an exponential need, decided to protect freedom of expression, in the manner mentioned above, in its Article 13. Thus, freedom of expression is duly established in the Constitutions of the MERCOSUL countries, as well as of the countries associated to this organization.
Let us take a look at the constitutional commandments embodied in the respective diplomas of the South American countries:
Brazilian Constitution, all people have a constitutionally guaranteed right of information, specifically access to information, limited by other rights such as the right to privacy, as well taught by the Article 5, item XIV of the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988, in verbis:

“Art. 5º Todos são iguais perante a lei, sem distinção de qualquer natureza, garantindo-se aos brasileiros e aos estrangeiros residentes no País a inviolabilidade do direito à vida, à liberdade, à igualdade, à segurança e à propriedade, nos termos seguintes:
[…]
XIV – é assegurado a todos o acesso à informação e resguardado o sigilo da fonte, quando necessário ao exercício profissional;”

Bolivian Constitution, which also propagated freedom of expression as a constitutional guarantee, dictated this fact in its Article 7, paragraph b, by thus advocating:

“Artículo 21. Las bolivianas y los bolivianos tienen los siguientes derechos:
(…)
3. A la libertad de pensamiento, espiritualidad, religión y culto, expresados en forma individual o colectiva, tanto en público como en privado, con fines lícitos.
(…)
5. A expresar y difundir libremente pensamientos u opiniones por cualquier medio de comunicación, de forma oral, escrita o visual, individual o colectiva.
6. A acceder a la información, interpretarla, analizarla y comunicarla libremente, de manera individual o colectiva.”

The Bolivian Constitution brings in itself an idea of freedom of expression presenting what are the necessary requirements to achieve such freedom, making it clear that this liberty to express one’s ideas and opinions can occur from any means of dissemination, whether written or not.
Chilean Constitution, the freedom of expression outlined in its Article 19, paragraph 12, which describes such liberty as follows:

“Art. 19. La Constitución asegura a todas las personas:
(…)
12. La libertad de emitir opinión y la de informar, sin censura previa, en cualquier forma y por cualquier medio, sin perjuicio de responder de los delitos y abusos que se cometan en el ejercicio de estas libertades, en conformidad a la ley, la que deber ser de quórum calificado.
La ley en ningún caso podrá establecer monopolio estatal sobre los medios de comunicación social.”

Paraguayan Constitution, freedom of expression is represented in its Article 26, which advocates the basic principles for this type of right, thus teaching:

“Se garantiza la libre expresión y la libertad de prensa, así como la difusión del pensamiento y de la opinión, sin censura alguna, sin más limitaciones que las dispuestas en esta Constitución; en consecuencia, no se dictará ninguna ley que las imposibilite o las restrinja. No habrá delitos de prensa, sino delitos comunes cometidos por medio de la prensa.
Toda persona tiene derecho a generar, procesar o difundir información, como igualmente a la utilización de cualquier instrumento lícito y apto para tales fines.”
Also, the Article 28 from the same Constitutional Letter refers to right to information this way:
“Se reconoce el derecho de las personas a recibir información veraz, responsable y ecuánime. (…)”

Argentine Constitution, the freedom of expression is disciplined in Article 14, let’s see:

“Artículo 14. Todos los habitantes de la Nación gozan de los siguientes derechos conforme a las leyes que reglamenten su ejercicio, a saber: (…) de publicar sus ideas por la prensa sin censura previa; (…).”

Uruguayan Constitution, this one outlines in its Article 29 about the subject discussed:

“Art. 29. Es enteramente libre en toda materia la comunicación de pensamientos por palabras, escritos privados o publicaciones de prensa, o por cualquier otra forma de divulgación, sin necesidad de previa censura; quedando responsable el autor y, en su caso, el impresor o emisor, con arreglo a la Ley por abusos que cometieren.”

From the presentation of the respective provisions in the different legislations of the countries, we perceive a common point, which is the inexistence of an absolute right and that, therefore, the dissemination of individual information or through press channels have limitations, which will result in sanctions as soon as those are extrapolated.
The legal systems describe a greater extent of the exercise of the right to information, proposing restrictions to be imposed to such, being, above all, the limit of lawfulness, but also the norms end up connecting the subject of information with other individual and collective rights, such as the right to religion, spirituality and worship.
With good reason, for a certain action to be held in the safe harbor of freedom of expression, it is a requirement that the exercise of this freedom does not harm anyone, in any of their rights. Therefore, we always have alive the important words of the late NUNO E SOUZA when he emphasizes: “All freedom has logical limits, that is, consubstantial to the very concept of freedom”.
Still with regard to the non-existence of an absolute right, it is necessary to present the relevant magisterium of ROBERT ALEXY, a mandatory reference in the matter, by demonstrating with total propriety that, if a principle is considered absolute, the right based on it will also be absolute. The problem for the German lawyer lies in the individual dimension of some supposedly absolute right. In other words, if every individual had the prerogative to exercise an absolute right, how would his or her relationship with other individuals also have the same absolute right? Would they all give in, even if considered absolute and thus impassive to give in? Obviously, due to the paradox that would provoke the thesis, it cannot be accepted.
In dark times, certain publications can threaten the survival of democratic institutions and even the Nation. However, it is necessary to take into account that as far as public authorities are concerned, I consider it a moral duty to carry out the criticism.
It is not credible, on the pretext of exercising freedom of expression, to violate the honor, intimacy or dignity of the human person. Therefore, given the incontestable relevance of the topic in discussion, the freedom of expression is protected to, among other purposes, ensure the formation of the individual personality (although it is not, of course, responsible for the totality of this formation), it would be unbearable that its exercise should engender precisely the disrespect for personality rights and, moreover, provoke that formation through the vicious disclosures, generating an implicit message that the rights can be violated.
This time, it is necessary to have the perpetual preservation of this important Tutelage Right, which allows human beings the freedom to demonstrate; however, it is indispensable to repress conduct that is offensive, especially to the dignity of the human person. Therefore, it is imperative to respect the limits imposed by law.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
BRASIL. [Constituição (1988)]. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil: promulgada em 5 de outubro de 1988.
TAVARES. André Ramos. Curso de Direito Constitucional – 18ª Ed. – São Paulo: Saraiva, 2020.