Ativismo judicial ou defesa constitucional? os limites da atuação do STF frente ao artigo 19 do Marco Civil da internet (Temas 987 e 533)

Abstract

This Final Course Project aims to investigate whether the actions of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) in analyzing the constitutionality and reinterpretation of Article 19 of the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights (Law No. 12.965/2014), within the scope of Themes 987 and 533 of General Repercussion, constitute a case of excessive judicial activism and usurpation of legislative competence, or whether it represents the legitimate exercise of the constitutional defense of conflicting fundamental rights. Methodologically, the research adopts a qualitative approach of a bibliographic and documentary nature, based on the dogmatic analysis of Constitutional Law and Digital Law, as well as on the jurisprudential examination focused on extracting the ratio decidendi of the votes cast by the Justices of the Supreme Court. The study's development demonstrates that the internet has evolved from the logic of passive information boards to platforms driven by algorithmic curation and monetization, a context in which the judicial notice and takedown model (requiring a prior court order to hold platforms accountable) has begun to generate a protective deficit for victims of illegal acts. The results indicate that the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) found that a supervening process of unconstitutionality of the norm had occurred, motivated by the failure of the original factual prognosis and the lethargy of the National Congress in updating the regulatory framework. It is concluded, peremptorily, that the Court's intervention does not constitute voluntarist activism, but rather an imperative and legitimate exercise of constitutional defense supported by the principle of prohibition of insufficient protection, establishing minimum standards to protect human dignity without usurping the role of the Legislative branch.