Archive for abril \22\UTC 2015

A Liberdade de Crítica na Internet é semelhante a Liberdade de Imprensa

22 de abril de 2015

Freedom-of-speechEm recente decisão, a Juíza Vanessa Ribeiro Mateus do Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo entendeu não proceder o pedido de retirada de vídeos do Youtube que criticam empresa (vide Processo nº: 1054177-97.2014.8.26.0100).

No caso, a Votorantim ajuizou ação  em face do GOOGLE alegando, em síntese,  que foram disponibilizados dois vídeos de conteúdo difamatório sobre a requerente no YouTube.  Em sua decisão, a juíza sustenta que o conteúdo dos vídeos constitui mera crítica desfavorável, retratando a simples opinião pessoal do subscritor.

Além disso, afirma que os comentários reputados ofensivos não fazem uso de qualquer expressão chula, tampouco contém qualquer ofensa gratuita à empresa. Ao contrário, o que fazem é expor e criticar, mesmo que de forma efusiva. Não havendo o dever de exclusão dos mencionados vídeos, reputou desnecessária a quebra do sigilo sobre as informações do usuário.

Interessante notar que  a juíza recorreu aos mesmos critérios utilizados para liberdade de imprensa,  que, conforme já tivemos oportunidade de analisar, são os seguintes:

  1. a) o fato ou pessoa criticada deve ser de interesse público;
  2. b) a opinião ou a crítica não devem desbordar para ataques injuriosos, como xingamentos, palavrões etc.

Nota-se, portanto, que o julgamento de questões atinentes à liberdade de expressão  na internet cada vez mais se aproxima dos critérios jurisprudenciais para liberdade de imprensa.



4 de abril de 2015
Sunrise at Niterói, RJ, Brazil

Sunrise at Niterói, RJ, Brazil

No wonder that modern man feels a special attraction to the morbid, the freaks, the ugly.   The synthesis of this reality is, in my view, the Funk, erected the “cultural heritage” of Rio de Janeiro.   Honestly, I do not know which is worse in Funk, whether it is the “melody” from hell, or is the letter, a kind of “mantra” of sex and violence.  

The modern man lost the sense of beauty from the moment that he used it either a form of domination or a social and ideologic transformation.   Beauty begins to be destroyed with Nietzsche, emptying it of its ontological sense when he says that beauty is not in things, as the man himself produces it to give things and so impoverish themselves.   It is a self-deception of men.  
Some thinkers are known that wanted to use as the beautiful as a form of social revolution, as Gramsci, who proposed the use of the arts to communism deployment.  
The Modern Art, from the time when, in an almost teenage revolt, wanted to get rid of any “rule” or proportion of aesthetics, fell into the abyss of chaos and non sense.   In various fields of art (music, painting, sculpture, etc.) abstractions that mark the triumph of shapeless and formless are regarded as masterpieces by experts.   But the simple man, devoid of the “wisdom of the intellectuals of the city” realize that this is true ugliness, somewhat as in the fable in which a boy cries that the king was naked.  
What happened Is that beauty has an ontological dimension.   Thus, a structural element of beauty is as classicall consists in the form.   The artwork is always and only one demiurgic work, printing form to the shapeless, taking from the chaos the cosmos where logos shines.   For the Greeks, the architecture, sculpture and pottery were based on canons that were an essential perfection rule and could be expressed accurately by numbers and proportions.  
The Greeks considered beauty and goodness as inseparable, which is summarized by the word “Kalokagathia” (καλοκαγαθία), a Greek concept derived from the expression “kalos kai agathos” (καλός καi αγαθός), which literally means beauty and goodness, or beauty and virtuous. On the other hand, Konrad Lorenz claims that “the familiarity with beauty is an optimal antidote against the mistaken opinion (…) that it is only real something that can be defined with exactness and quantified”.  

%d blogueiros gostam disto: