The Clash Between Freedom of Expression and the Dissemination of Ideas That Contradict Science: Constitutional Guarantee or Crime?

Abstract

Abstract

This article analyzes the clash between freedom of expression — a fundamental right enshrined in the 1988 Brazilian Federal Constitution — and the dissemination of ideas that contradict scientific knowledge. It seeks to understand the extent to which statements based on personal opinions, disconnected from scientific evidence, may be protected under the right to free expression or, conversely, constitute abuse, especially when they generate social impacts, as observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study examines the historical and normative foundations of freedom of expression, its characterization as a principle subject to balancing, and the limits imposed by the protection of other fundamental rights, such as human dignity and the right to life. It also addresses the tension between freedom of expression and hate speech, as well as the role of social media in spreading denialist ideas. The research adopts a qualitative and descriptive-analytical approach, grounded in bibliographical review and jurisprudential analysis, particularly of decisions from the Brazilian Supreme Court. The conclusion is that freedom of expression, although essential to democracy, is not absolute and must be reconciled with other constitutional values, being legitimately subject to restrictions when used to incite discrimination, violence, or the denial of proven scientific facts.

Keywords: freedom of expression; fundamental rights; denialism; hate speech; science.