Freedom of expression and separation of powers: a critical analysis of judicial activism in contemporary Brazil

Abstract

This article critically analyzes the judicial activism of the Supreme Federal Court in regulating freedom of expression on social media. It argues that measures such as content removals and profile blocks, although justified by the defense of democracy and the fight against misinformation, exceed constitutional prerogatives, strain the separation of powers, and compromise the fundamental right to free expression. The objective is to examine how this activism threatens freedom of expression and democratic balance. The research methodology is qualitative exploratory, based on bibliography, doctrine, jurisprudence, and opinions of jurists such as Lênio Streck, Ives Gandra Martins, and Thomas Sowell. Concluding that the STF acts as a guardian of the Constitution, but risks turning regulation into prior censorship, requiring a balance between institutional protection and freedom of expression. The absence of quantitative empirical analysis restricts generalizations; it is recommended to expand with comparative studies and empirical methods. It contributes to the contemporary debate on judicial activism, with a critical focus and conservative/libertarian perspectives, highlighting risks to plural democracy in the digital environment.