FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE INTERAMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Abstract

The fundamental right to freedom of speech has undeniable relevance, being present in countless laws around the world. This relevance is also recognized by the Inter-American system, that brings detailed scope in the American Convention of Human Rights. However, it is a controversial right, that is always under debate about its limits and impact. For this reason, the analysis of the contentious jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights contributes directly to the understanding of how the issues surrounding the fundamental right in question are treated by the system that regulates the human rights in the American continents. This research aims to explain the concept, the limits and the treatment given to the tensions generated by the exercise of the right to freedom of thought and expression by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, carrying out dogmatic-legal analysis of all contentious cases already judged by that body, separating them according to the type of restriction made to freedom of speecho, that may be prior censorship, indirect restrictions, further responsibility, access to information or violence against journalists. It is intended to demonstrate whether such jurisprudence is clear and has solid and objective standard, capable of guaranteeing legal certainty. Concluding that, despite the convictions handed down in relation to the States, the Court's jurisprudence presents some problems, such as, for example, the admission of indeterminate and abstract concepts in justifying restrictions on the exercise of freedom of speech.