Privacies in public: on the legitimacy of privacy and freedom of information in Brazil and England: public debates on the regulation of Brazilian internet and the Leveson inquiry

• Grant number: 14/18976-7
• Support Opportunities: Scholarships abroad - Research
• Start date: November 01, 2014
• End date: January 31, 2015
• Field of knowledge: Applied Social Sciences - Communications - Journalism and Publishing
• Principal Investigator: Vitor Souza Lima Blotta
• Grantee: Vitor Souza Lima Blotta
• Host Investigator: Dominic McGoldrick
• Host Institution: Escola de Comunicações e Artes (ECA). Universidade de São Paulo (USP). São Paulo , SP, Brazil
• Institution abroad: University of Nottingham, University Park, England
• Associated research grant: 13/07923-7 - Center of the Study of Violence - NEV/USP, AP.CEPID

Abstract

This research project presents the fundaments and work plan of a three-month research fellowship (Nov 2014-Jan 2015) to be held at the Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) of the University of Nottingham Law School, in England, under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Dominic McGoldrick. The project is part of the post-doctoral research "The Legitimacy of Human Rights through the Political Public Sphere in Brazil: case studies in the interfaces of social political and political communications", developed at the Center for the Study of Violence of the University of São Paulo (proc. FAPESP 2012/10780-0). The scientific purpose of the fellowship at the HRLC is to analyze discourses from social and state actors in different media on recent cases of state responses to privacy violations in Brazil and England, namely, the civil regulation of Brazilian Internet (Marco Civil da Internet), and the Leveson Inquiry. The research aims to contribute to the understanding of different perspectives on the right to privacy, their relations to freedom of information and media regulation, as well as their legitimation processes. The proposal is hence to perceive how Brazilian and English political public spheres have been dealing with the tensions between privacy and freedom of information, through analyses of debates in the press about media regulation policies. The presupposition is that the quality of these debates, analyzed by the way in which their discourses and validity claims interact, affect the legitimation processes of these rights in each country. (AU)