{"id":1153,"date":"2026-04-25T21:43:59","date_gmt":"2026-04-26T00:43:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/?p=1153"},"modified":"2026-04-25T21:43:59","modified_gmt":"2026-04-26T00:43:59","slug":"the-insult-prohibited-by-the-constitution-and-by-the-brazilian-supreme-federal-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/?p=1153","title":{"rendered":"The Insult Prohibited by the Constitution and by the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Symbolic Violence in the Discourse of Power<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Murillo Gutier<\/strong> | murillo@gutier.adv.br<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This study examines the constitutional implications of a statement attributed to Justice Gilmar Mendes<\/strong>, dean of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court<\/strong> (STF), in which homosexuality was used as an example of a situation supposedly offensive to the image of a public figure. Drawing on Slavoj \u017di\u017eek’s<\/strong> concept of symbolic violence<\/strong>, the article argues that the gravity of the statement lies not in the isolated word employed, but in the argumentative structure<\/strong> that associates sexual orientation with insult, shame, and public degradation. By placing homosexuality within the rhetorical field of dishonor, the statement displaces an existential characteristic protected by the Constitution<\/strong> into the domain of humiliation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study highlights the contradiction between the statement and the STF’s own precedents. In ADO 26\/DF<\/strong> (2019), the Court recognized homotransphobia as a grave constitutional violation and included it within the legal concept of racism. In ADPF 787\/DF<\/strong> (2024), reported by Justice Gilmar Mendes himself, the Court addressed the protection of transgender persons in the Brazilian Unified Health System, affirming human dignity<\/strong> as a binding legal foundation. The article also examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent in Obergefell v. Hodges<\/em><\/strong> (2015) and the historical experience of \u00a7 175 of the German Criminal Code<\/strong> (BVerfGE 6, 389), demonstrating that constitutional courts may reproduce social prejudices under the appearance of legal language.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article concludes that criticism of the statement is not mere linguistic policing but constitutional criticism<\/strong>. In societies marked by historical exclusions, language<\/strong> is a field of dispute over dignity<\/strong>: to name an identity as a possible insult is to relocate it in the symbolic place of inferiority. The Constitution requires dignity to be respected not only in judicial decisions, but also in the public language of authorities<\/strong>. In a Democratic State governed by the Rule of Law, diversity<\/strong> is a cornerstone of the constitutional order and cannot be converted into a rhetorical instrument of humiliation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keywords:<\/strong> symbolic violence; human dignity; sexual diversity; discourse of power; ADO 26\/DF; ADPF 787\/DF; Obergefell v. Hodges<\/em>; constitutional language; LGBTphobia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\tThe Insult Prohibited by the Constitution and by the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court - Murillo Gutier\t(1 download\t)\n<\/a>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Symbolic Violence in the Discourse of Power Murillo Gutier | murillo@gutier.adv.br Abstract This study examines the constitutional implications of a statement attributed to Justice Gilmar Mendes, dean of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF), in which homosexuality was used as an example of a situation supposedly offensive to the image of a public figure. Drawing … <\/p>\n

Continue lendo “The Insult Prohibited by the Constitution and by the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"saved_in_kubio":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[71],"tags":[333,329,335,332,330,336,227,331,337,334],"class_list":["post-1153","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-direito-constitucional","tag-ado-26-df","tag-adpf-787-df","tag-constitutional-language","tag-discourse-of-power","tag-human-dignity","tag-lgbtphobia","tag-lingua-estrangeira","tag-obergefell-v-hodges","tag-sexual-diversity","tag-symbolic-violence"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1153","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1153"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1153\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1153"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1153"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1153"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}