Revista da ESPM
|maio/junhode 2012
112
english abstracts
Regulation and responsibility
RobertoCivita
page
10
This article seeks to expose the effects of
the polarization of opinions as well as the
risk of extremism when it comes to expres-
sing opinions about the role of the state as
a regulator and disciplinary agent of social
behavior. Roberto Civita, president of the
board of directors and chief editor at the
Abril group, analyzes the risks of extremist
positions by relying on examples such as the
former Soviet Union and Thomas Hobbes’s
natural man (who regresses to savagery
for having access to total, unlimited free-
dom). The author proceeds to explain that
we fortunately live in a world of pacts and
agreements in which one’s freedom ends
where someone else’s freedom begins – and
the state is the regulator of quarrels related
to these issues. At the very basis of this
delicate structure are two fundamental ele-
ments that the national state must observe:
freedom of the press and free will.
Commercial advertising
is the victimof bullying
GilbertoLeifert
page
22
Theoretically, the Constitution of 1988 ma-
rked the end of censorship in Brazil and re-
established the freedom of thought, creation
and speech. It also ensured free information,
free will, free competition and consumer
protection. In practice, however, freedom of
speech is still threatened by countless bills
that aim to restrict advertising in certain ma-
rket segments. That’s what Gilberto Leifert,
president of the Conar (National Agency for
the Self-Regulation of Advertising), shows
in this article by conducting an analysis of
the Brazilian Communications Industry and
exposing how commercial advertising is being
a victim of bullying. As an example, Leifert
mentions the countless decrees, resolutions
and ordinances passed by the Anvisa (Natio-
nal Health Surveillance Agency) to restrict the
operations of advertising agencies. This kind
of behavior can be questioned based on sim-
ple reasoning: brands selling legal products
that are safe for consumers must be allowed
to advertise them under the restrictions of
fair, reasonable and proportional laws created
by self-regulatory agencies. After all, Brazil’s
laws are already too numerous.
The state can’t tell
peoplewhat tobe
IvesGandra da SilvaMartins
page
28
The evolution of democratic regimes has
raised the need to establish balanced rela-
tionships between the power, the people and
individual citizens. Since human beings who
are given the power are not trustworthy (for
theymay end up trying to take the power sole-
ly to themselves) and human groups still have
a lot to learn about power autonomy, gover-
ning authorities tend to manipulate regimes
so that opposing parties will become weaker
and less relevant to the public opinion. In this
scenario, individual rights are frequently under
attack while collective rights absorb constitu-
tional charters and the democratic experience
itself. Renowned Brazilian jurist Ives Gandra
da Silva Martins believes true democracy is
the one in which government and society
don’t deprive individuals from the freedom of
being, thinking and doing whatever they want
to (within the boundaries of the law).
Who owns the state?
HeródotoBarbeiro
page
40
Brazilian elites have led the process through
which the state was organized since Brazil
became an independent country. Historian,
journalist and professor Heródoto Barbeiro
highlights that the Brazilian people didn’t take
part in the creation of the Imperial Constitu-
tion, nor did it participate in the movement
responsible for taking down monarchy and
establishing the republican government. The
people was sidelined when it came to writing
the Charters of 1946 and 1988 – even though
it had democratically elected those who wrote
them. Elite groups have taken the lead of
these processes and written laws that would
reflect their own points of view, which would
have to be followed by the whole Brazilian
population. The lack of citizenship, communi-
tarian organization and active participation in
the debate of a national project have made it
possible for some people to take the lead and
impose their world conceptions. Long-lasting
democratic and civic change must be grass-
rootsmovements – and this has yet tohappen
in Brazil, for the country has never seen true
popular engagement and organization (not
to mention the fact that those who have the
power are not willing to share it).
Journalismhas tobe
accountable to society
MarinaDias
page
52
The Brazilian Constitution includes the gui-
ding principles for press coverage of criminal
cases: freedom of speech and freedom of
the press, in addition to other individual
rights. “There can be no democracy without
freedom of the press, and vice-versa,” says
lawyer Mariana Dias, emphasizing that this
deep connection implies that the press should
focus on the observance of the fundamental
precepts of the democratic state. There’s
also a symbiotic relationship between the
press and law enforcement agents, which
increasingly turns crime into a spectacle. In
this scenario, what is the role of the press, the
judiciary, and the law enforcement agents?
The borders between freedom of the press
and the individual rights in the journalistic
coverage are hazy, which makes it hard to
draw a line between them without actually
harming the freedom of those involved. One
of the ways to promote this debate is to cre-
ate spaces for discussion, engaging both the
press and all the other stakeholders.
Digital society: the individual
versus collectivity
Patricia Peck
page
58
The technological progress that took place
during the last century has allowed for
the creation of what we currently know as
the digital society. This society is based on
electronic media and intangible assets, and
it depends on energy, telecommunications
and technology. But would we have been
able to build a society like this without a
strong, powerful state? From indigenous
tribes to social networks, values are coded
into collective rules that are imposed to
each participant of a certain community.
Patricia Peck, a lawyer who specializes in
digital rights, asserts that laws generally
prioritize the collective will rather than the
individual will, especially when it comes to
social security. Freedom of speech and free
will are fundamental principles, but they
can be neglected in favor of a greater good,
considering the challenge of generatingmore
sustainability and public governance in a
scenario of growing competitiveness and
scarce environmental resources. Considering
