Content uploaded by Magda Pischetola
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Magda Pischetola on Aug 31, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
MILID Yearbook 2016
A collaboration between UNESCO, UNITWIN, UNAOC and GAPMIL
Media and
Information
Literacy:
Reinforcing
Human Rights,
Countering
Radicalization
and Extremism
Edited by Jagtar Singh, Paulette Kerr
and Esther Hamburger
Published in 2016 by the United Nations Educational,
Scientic and Cultural Organization
7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France
© UNESCO 2016
ISBN 978-92-3-100177-2
This publication is available in Open Access under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO
(CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/). By
using the content of this publication, the users accept to be bound by the terms of use of
the UNESCO Open Access Repository (http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-
ccbysa-en).
The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication
do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors; they are
not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization.
Editors: Jagtar Singh, Paulette Kerr and Esther Hamburger
Cover photo: UNESCO/DENTSU/University of Sao Paulo
Graphic design: Gérard Prosper
Printed by: UNESCO/CLD
Printed in France
Marcelo Andrade & Magda Pischetola
117
Media and Information Literacy,
Hate Speech and Education for
Tolerance:
A Case Study of Brazilian Social Networks
Marcelo Andrade & Magda Pischetola
The expansion of social media in the last decade has had unintended consequences related to
radicalization, extremism and hate speech. The possibility of anonymity, the physical absence of the
interlocutors, and the isolation at the moment when the individual is constructing his argumentative
reasoning are possible factors that contribute towards this phenomenon. This paper focuses on the
relevance of Media and Information Literacy (MIL) in this landscape. It presents a Brazilian case study of a
recent conict concerning hate speech, which arose in social media, and involved the federal congressman
Jair Bolsonaro and the educational magazine Nova Escola. In a video message on his popular Facebook
page, the politician attacked the magazine because of the image on its cover where a young boy appears
dressed as a princess. In addition to this, he goes on to criticize sex education materials provided by the
government, especially because they mention homosexuality as something “normal”. Our analysis of the
most popular comments on the video shows how discrimination and hate speech appear in the great
majority of the users’ opinions. On the other hand, the magazine’s resp onse through an edited form of the
original video message, represents a clear attempt to rectify the information and its sources and to enable
citizens to challenge their own beliefs, in order to critically engage with these topics. As a conclusion,
the paper discusses MIL in dialogue with education for tolerance. It argues that developing tolerance
in social media would require the development of three fundamental skills: (i) the ability to search for
sources of information and build a critical sense; (ii) the ability to respect and value the dierences among
human beings in multicultural societies; (iii) the ability to accept and articulate, in an ethical perspective,
the concepts of “minimum of justice” and “maximum of happiness”. How we develop MIL skills and how
we couple them with education for tolerance will determine whether we promote critical and respectful
dialogue on social media or whether we will give in to the hate speech that spreads online.
Keywords: Media and Information Literacy (MIL), hate speech, education for tolerance, social media.
Marcelo Andrade & Magda Pischetola
118
Social media and “hate speech”
e digital media and the Internet have brought substantial changes in all aspects
of human life. Today we experience the possibility of being not only consumers but
also producers of information and creative content, and we are able to reach a wide
audience online. In the last decade, the social media have transformed the nature of
groups and power relations, allowing individuals to associate and organize them-
selves spontaneously, based on common interests, within a system that presents
structural exibility and fast communication ows (Gee, 2009).
In this setting, it has been necessary to review the meaning of the concept of
“literacy” to include other skills, beyond the ability of reading and writing, such as:
content selection, interpretation and elaboration in dierent formats and languages;
judgment and discernment of the information sources; critical analysis; expression
and communication skills; and collaboration practices amidst dierent spaces of
interaction. From an emphasis on technical skills, the concept of Media and Infor-
mation Literacy (MIL) has changed towards a focus on the subject and his potential
to express himself. Moreover, it has come to include a reexive aspect about the
social contexts of reading and writing. With social inclusion at its core, MIL has
also been interpreted as the ability to participate in democratic processes through
the use of online communication channels (Carpentier, 2012; Warschauer, 2003).
However, research from the last decade has revealed that social media can also
become a fertile environment for the expression of hate. ey represent a public
space capable of replicating and radicalizing the conicts present in social reality
(Daniels, 2008; Duy, 2003). e alleged anonymity, the physical absence of the
interlocutors and the isolation at the moment when the individual is constructing
his argumentative reasoning are possible factors that contribute towards this
phenomenon: the spread of hate speech in social media.
But how can we identify (and dene) hate speech? Conceptualizing hate is not
an easy task. On the one hand, it appears to be a feeling of anger or an expression of
violence. On the other hand, it is simply understood as the opposite of love or the
inability to love (Gerstenfeld et al., 2003). In this perspective, hate would be just an
absence, that is, the lack of good feelings, and it would be engendered by the lack of
opportunity to experience good, or to be educated in a loving environment.
According to the Dictionary of the Brazilian Academy of Letters, hate is
dened as “a feeling of resentment or rage against someone or something”. It is also
described as “hostility, repugnance and antipathy”. However, it is not only a tran-
sient or momentary emotion. It should not be mistaken with any form of irritation.
Hate is an intense, deep and lasting feeling.
Beyond the identication of hate as a feeling, Glucksmann (2007, p. 11) claims
that “hate exists”, it is a concrete experience, and that “we all have already faced
it, both in the micro scale of individuals and in the core of huge collectivities”.
is way, hate is more than a feeling, intense, deep and lasting. It endures and also
perpetuates as speech, which Glucksmann (2007, p.12) calls “hate speech”:
Marcelo Andrade & Magda Pischetola
119
With its traditional ornaments – anger, wrath, bestiality, ferocity – of
which it displays a full arsenal, hate accuses without knowing. Hate
judges without listening. Hate condemns as it pleases. It respects
nothing and believes to nd itself facing some sort of universal plot.
Exhausted, full of resentment, it tears everything with its arbitrary and
powerful blow. I hate, therefore I exist.
According to the author, hate is not an irrational phenomenon, restricted to the
eld of obscure feelings, but is speech, that is, even if it does not resist the counter
arguments or does not provide enough reasons for its own justication, hate is an
articulated and intentional expression, elaborated through verbal language, as will
appear clear in the analysis here presented.
Evidence from our research shows that hate speech is both irrational (without
sucient ethical reasons to sustain it), and rational (with speech and arguments
strongly articulated). us, hate is a phenomenon that needs to be recognized and
dismantled, due to its ethical weakness. In general, it is fragile from an argumen-
tative point of view, but its capacity of destroying social relations should not be
underestimated. ese observations lead us to consider hate speech – especially that
which has boomed in social media – as an urgent and necessary issue to address in
research and pedagogical practices.
Examining current cases of hate speech – misogyny, racism, homophobia,
fundamentalism, and anti-Semitism – Glucksmann (2007, pp. 265-270) presents
seven conclusions about hate as speech: (i) hate exists, and it is not just the absence
of good or love; (ii) hate disguises, it conceals itself with false alibis that try to justify
it; (iii) hate is insatiable, it triggers a relentless argumentative wave without truce
that does not accept dialogue across the dierences; (iv) hate promises paradise, it
presents itself as a necessary evil in order to obtain a better situation than the present
one; (v) hate wishes to be a creator god, it has followed the footsteps of moralist reli-
gious speeches and in the skepticism of modernity; (vi) hate loves death, it wants the
elimination of those that do not share the premise assumed as the only correct and
acceptable moral code; (vii) hate is nurtured from its own devouring, it is a speech
closed in on itself, that repeats its internal logic until exhaustion, without dialogue
with or empathy for those that think dierently.
e literature on the topic (Daniels, 2008; Glucksmann, 2007) highlights the
intentionality of some groups in promoting hate speech through dierent digital
platforms and multiple forms of communication, which are selected according
to specic political objectives. In this context, social media have proved to be a
preferred space for the expansion of extremism, due to an assumed anonymity,
as well as a relatively inexpensive venue for widespread communication (Daniels,
2008). In addition, despite being a public space, social media keep some forms of
communication in a potentially semi-private registry.
From these considerations, we acknowledge that the regulation of hate speech
in social media is a borderline ethical dilemma between freedom of expression and
the respect for the minorities’ identities and opinions, foreseen in the basic prin-
ciples of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Nemes, 2002). e question
Marcelo Andrade & Magda Pischetola
120
then might be when and how to intervene in order to ensure one right or the other.
We know that freedom of speech is not an unlimited right and that the feeling of
oense might always materialize. In the case herein analyzed we will explore some
dimensions between these borders.
An Online Dispute: Bolsonaro versus Nova Escola
“All speech is not free. Power inequities institutionalized through economies,
gender roles, social classes, and corporate-owned media ensure that all voices do
not carry the same weight” (Boler, 2004, p. 3). is observation is even more serious
when it applies to a public gure, such as a well-known politician, who gives his
opinions through the social media, platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube,
and Instagram. is is precisely the case of the media dispute that took place in
Brazil in January 2016, between the federal congressman Jair Bolsonaro and the
educational magazine Nova Escola.
Jair Bolsonaro is a retired military man, currently serving his sixth mandate
as federal congressman for Rio de Janeiro. In 27 years of public life, Bolsonaro has
belonged to six dierent political parties (PDC, PFL, PTB, PPB, PPR e PP), which
can all be identied as belonging to the extreme right of the Brazilian political scene.
Bolsonaro is one of the major voices of the conservatism in Brazil. His arguments
are generally oversimplied and one-dimensional, which leads him to engage in
frequent lawsuits, led by human rights organizations. Several examples of contro-
versies involving the politician can easily be recognized as examples of hate speech:
• In an interview with Veja magazine (December/1998), the congressman declared
that the dictatorship of Pinochet in Chile “should have killed more people”;
• Questioned on the TV program CQC (March/2011) about what he would do if
his son got involved with drugs, he answered that “I would spank him, you can be
sure of that”;
• In an interview with Isto É magazine (April/2011), he supported torture, justi-
fying that it has “the goal of injuring someone until he opens his mouth”;
• He declared to the news portal Terra (June/2011) that “I would rather have a dead
son than a homosexual one”;
• “I’m prejudiced, very proud” was the heading of his interview with Época maga-
zine (July/2011);
• “I do not discuss promiscuity” was the answer reported by the news portal G1
(August/2013), about what he would do if his son married a black woman;
• “I am against the racial quotas because the minorities should not be protected”, he
stated in an interview in the TV program Programa do Ratinho (May/2014);
Marcelo Andrade & Magda Pischetola
121
• “I would not rape you because you are not worth it”, was his declaration to Maria
do Rosário Nunes, federal congresswoman and Minister of Human Rights in the
government of Dilma Rousse (December/2014).
As we can see, Bolsonaro does not avoid making oensive statements and decla-
rations that would not be approved by political correctness. Perhaps, therein lies
part of the fascination he exerts upon the media and his constituency: he says what
many people think but do not have the courage to assume publically. It is important
to remember that Bolsonaro is a well-known politician . In 2014, he was the most
voted federal congressman in Rio de Janeiro (464.000 votes; 6% of the constitu-
ency). is blend between assumed conservatism and high popularity both in the
media and in the ballot box led the newspaper El País (October/2014) to describe
him as a “disturbing phenomenon of Brazilian politics”.
In short, the main agendas of Bolsonaro have been the following: opposi-
tion to same-sex marriage ; opposition to the adoption of children by same-sex
couples; opposition to initiatives aimed to discuss gender and sexuality issues in
public schools, as we will see in the case analyzed in this paper. His speech invari-
ably defends the “traditional family” and “Christian morality”. Without any doubt,
Bolsonaro is a popular and ultraconservative media phenomenon in Brazil.
On January 10, 2016, the congressman started a new dispute involving hate
speech. He published a video-message on his Facebook page with charges against
the Ministry of Education (MEC) of the government of Dilma Rousse, regarding
the release of textbooks and booklets about sexual education in public schools.
In this video, he also attacks the magazine Nova Escola1 because of a front cover
(February/2015), in which a 5-year-old boy appears dressed like a princess, under
the title “Shall we talk about him?” According to the congressman, the materials
are part of a political strategy of the Workers’ Party, PT, summarized in four points:
(i) the PT intends not to recognize pedophilia as a crime; (ii) the Bolsa Família
Program2 is considered more important by the PT than children’s dignity; (iii) the
policies adopted by PT will worsen public education; (iv) public schools will be
transformed into “political party committees” by the PT.
e video message was watched 7 million times in one week, shared in the
social network more than 250 thousand times, commented and liked by thousands
of people. In a rst attempt to perform a discourse analysis, we examine an excerpt
of the 50 comments that have received the largest number of replies and “likes” in
the rst days aer the post. Our goal is to investigate the eventual occurrence of
hate speech among these comments.
e results obtained from the preliminary analysis can be summarized as
follows:
1. Almost half of the analyzed comments (21) used aggressive, raging and oen
oensive tones, therefore we categorized them as hate speech;
2. Some comments (4) adopted an ironic and provocative tone against the partic-
ipants of the debate that did not agree with the message of the politician, which
Marcelo Andrade & Magda Pischetola
122
made us relate these four comments to the 21 previously mentioned as examples
of hate speech;
3. A consistent number of comments (16) focused on expressing their support for
the congressman, generally with patriotic words and emotional messages;
4. Finally, a minority of the participants (9) make more qualied contributions to
the debate, asking for clarication on the provided data and their sources, and/
or posting material that integrates this information.
Figure 1 Analysis of the comments to the video of Jair Bolsonaro, January 2016.
Only the last comments – presented in the graph above as “Information” – showed
a respectful tone regarding the dierent perspectives and did not reveal other inten-
tions beyond learning more about the debated issue.
According to Glucksmann (2007, p. 266), the explicit expression of hate speech
is not something neutral nor without direction. On the contrary, “it chooses care-
fully everything it adores and hates, in order to hate even more and nd ways of
hating without end or truce”. e target can be women, people of color, homosex-
uals, Jews, foreigners, that is anyone that, according to a standardizing logic, is seen
as dierent or deviant.
It can be seen from the data collected that Bolsonaro’s main target is the
gender issue in education. He openly condemns any defense of gender identities
and/or sexualities that do not belong to the prevailing morality. In this context, for
example, the LGBT population is verbally assaulted. In general, the attack pattern
presents a moralist tone that is reiterated throughout the comments that support
the congressman’s position.
Five days aer this post, the magazine Nova Escola released a video under the
title “Checking Information” (Checagem de Informações), to answer Bolsonaro’s
accusations and point out his mistakes.
First, it is worth describing the video message released by the congressman.
Bolsonaro refers to the booklet “School without Homophobia” (Escola sem Homo-
fobia3) by detracting it with the expression “gay kit” and disqualifying it as a material
that would be inadequate to circulate in schools. en, in an alarmist tone, he criti-
cizes other material on sex education, the book “Sexual Apparatus & Co” (Aparelho
Marcelo Andrade & Magda Pischetola
123
Sexual e Cia) which, according to him, had been distributed by the Ministry of
Education (MEC) in Brazilian schools for 6-year-old children, and would result in
“early sexual stimulation for children” and would “open the door to pedophilia”.
Bolsonaro also comments on some specic parts of the book, claiming to be
surprised to nd information related to homosexuality, since – he states – “this is
not normal”. Finally, the congressman presents the Nova Escola magazine, another
book that he claims was acquired and distributed by the MEC to Brazilian public
schools. He criticizes its cover and accuses the Federal Government of “perverting
the kids”.
e video reply from Nova Escola refutes, step by step, each statement made by
the congressman. By using pauses in the original video, as a visual tool, the review
disproves all the misconceptions and dismantles the hate speech against the LGBT
population by indicating the sources that support an open debate about gender and
sexuality in school.
First, the review provides the link to the material “School without Homophobia”
and refers to positive comments by experts in pedagogy. Moreover, it cites the o-
cial note in which the MEC explains that this book is not didactic material for
public schools4. It also corrects the congressman about the age of the children to
whom the material is addressed (older than 11, and not 6 years old). Second, the
magazine reminds the politician and his public that the World Health Organiza-
tion has removed homosexuality from the list of international diseases in 1990
and, therefore, “this” is publicly recognized as “normal”. At last, the review shows
that the congressman confuses Nova Escola with a textbook. In response to this
misjudgment, the video-reply explains: “Nova Escola is not intended for students.
It is the largest publication for teachers in Brazil. Nova Escola does not have any
copy purchased by the Federal Government. Nova Escola does not support the PT, it
belongs to the Victor Civita foundation, which is part of the private business group
Abril. Moreover, the review cover was elected the best cover in 2015 by the Brazilian
national association of editors (Associação Nacional dos Editores de Revistas5) ”.
It is clear that what has motivated this video-reply to Bolsonaro was the interest
of Nova Escola in protecting itself from the aforementioned slanders before its audi-
ence. Nevertheless, what draws our attention is the fact that this initiative represents
a real lesson about MIL: all mistakes are corrected in detail; the sources of informa-
tion are presented clearly; in spite of the defenseof an oppositepoint of view, a tone
of respect is maintained towards the congressman’s and his followers’ opinions. We
can perceive that the video tried not to cause further controversy, but to give infor-
mation that has been hidden in the original video and, most importantly, without
any trace of hate speech. at is, Nova Escola performs a rened exercise of MIL
versus a set of angry and groundless opinions presented in the original video.
e video published by Nova Escola was watched by more than 4.5 million
people. On the Facebook page of the magazine, overwhelmed by comments, a list
of rules for the regulation of the online debate has appeared. It is interesting to
notice the rst one (liked by 5.000 people in a few minutes): “all oensive comments
will be erased from this wall”. Here again, we face the dilemma between freedom
of speech and oenses against minorities. e publication is clear in assuming a
Marcelo Andrade & Magda Pischetola
124
position against comments that violate the dignity of individuals and institutions.
However, the comment of one reader called our attention: “you can present thou-
sands of sources opposing this guy [Bolsonaro], but the alienated people that vote
for him would rather get excited with ignorant hate speech”. So, shall we admit that
hate speech cannot be overcome? Our belief is that, however dicult it may be, this
is a challenge that needs to be addressed, as we propose here, through the articula-
tion between MIL and education for tolerance.
Educating New Generations: MIL and Tolerance
According to Soares (2002), literacy is a process that extends throughout our whole
life and that demands a constant adaptation to the socio-cultural context and new
languages. ese social practices are in constant transformation in a changing
world, and are, therefore, always considered “new”. Indeed, innovative literacy – as
we consider MIL to be – is one that does not limit itself to transfer the same atti-
tudes to a new technology, but that stimulates new practices, behaviors, values, and
ways of thinking (Lankshear & Knobel, 2007).
It is evident that, in the online world, many dierent social practices converge:
information and entertainment; work and leisure; local and global; public and
private; hate speech and respectful speech. In this context, it is urgent to educate
young people to become critical in their use of social media, not only regarding
written messages, but also contents produced in other formats: audiovisual, image,
music, animation or hypertext. e new generations need to develop autonomy and
critical thinking, to exert creative production skills, while always respecting the
opinions of others (Daniels, 2008; Jenkins, 2009). us, there seems to be evidence
that indicates that teaching young people to listen and read without falling into
hate speech, despite provocations, is a crucial element of MIL. ese observations
lead us to argue that, in pluralistic societies that use media to communicate and
interact with others, tolerance is a necessary element of literacy, which contributes
to avoiding hate speech.
As we look closer on the online dispute between congressman Bolsonaro and
the magazine Nova Escola, the importance of tolerance becomes clear, especially
considering the analyzed comments on the rst video. As Augras (1997, p. 78)
explains: “When we talk about tolerance it is, in fact, about intolerance that we talk”.
is study has raised important questions about the nature of hate speech and
its relationship to literacy and tolerance. In conclusion, we identify three funda-
mental skills that MIL should reinforce in the perspective of educating for tolerance.
First, we argue that searching for information and constructing a critical sense
are necessary skills to prepare youth for the pitfalls of hate speech. It is troublesome
that most of the commentators in the analyzed social media have not checked the
provided data, and have given their unconditional support to the aggressive speech
of Bolsonaro. It should be recognized that, in multicultural societies such as the
Brazilian, marked by all sorts of discrimination (racism, sexism, xenophobia, and
Marcelo Andrade & Magda Pischetola
125
homophobia), the search for reliable sources is the rst step to the construction of
valid arguments.
Second, we consider that learning to respect and value dierences is also a funda-
mental skill to avoid the expressions of hate speech, which are present in social
media. We regard dierence as a crucial value in multicultural societies, both in the
form of dierences of opinion as well as in the form of dierences of identities that
dene us as human beings. In this way, the articulation between MIL and education
for tolerance assumes that hate speech is based on the denial of the identity of the
other, on the elimination of dierence, and on the attempt to standardize behavior,
as if there were only one acceptable morality in society. e suggested answer would
be a balance between the value of dierence and the principle of equality. As Santos
(2003, p. 56) points out: “we have the right to be equal when our dierence devalues
us; and the right to be dierent whenever equality misplaces us”. More than ever
we live in a context dened by issues raised by dierence, which are overempha-
sized by the social media. Dierences – of gender, sexuality, race, religion, genera-
tion, origins, belongings, and capacities – which oen remain hidden and disguised
because of a standardized and accepted discourse.
ird, we emphasize that articulating justice as a minimum and happiness as a
maximum is also a skill to be developed. In this perspective, in order to understand
MIL as education for tolerance, it is necessary to distinguish between what is “fair”
and what is “good” for all. As Cortina (1999, p. 62) explains: “e ethics of justice, or
ethics of minimums, deals only with the universal dimension of the moral phenom-
enon, that is, with those required duties of justice demandable from any rational
being, and which are, eectively, only constituted of minimum requirements. In
contrast, the ethics of happiness intends to provide the ideals of a decent and good
life, which are presented in a hierarchical way and comprise the set of goods that
humankind enjoys as the source of the greatest possible happiness. ey are, there-
fore, ethics of maximums, which advise us to follow the model and invite us to take
them as norms of conduct, but cannot demand to be followed, since happiness is an
issue of advice and invitation, not of demand”.
In this approach, equality would be an ideal of “minimums of justice” to be
shared by all fellow citizens; and the dierences of identity, in turn, would be ideals
of “maximums of happiness”, which everyone meets in private. For example, the
Christian moral that, supposedly, is at the base of Bolsonaro’s speech would be an
ideal of happiness for some citizens, but not for all. erefore, it might be present
in plural societies, but it cannot disrespect the minimums that guarantee other
possible morals. In conclusion, if we want to ensure plurality, a certain ideal of
happiness cannot be imposed as the only rule for everybody.
In the analyzed case, a healthy balance between minimums and maximums
would have been reached by the participants of the debate if they had not limited
themselves to private opinions, but instead had found a balance between what
they consider “good” for themselves (maximums of happiness) and what they
consider “fair” for all fellow citizens (minimums of justice). For example, in one of
the analyzed comments, it was argued that children’s sexual education should be
handled by the family, according to its own moral patterns (maximums of happi-
Marcelo Andrade & Magda Pischetola
126
ness). However, no comment indicated that, beyond the family and group princi-
ples, education should deal with issues of gender and sexuality, to meet the needs
of a society where everybody might freely express their gender and sexual identities
(minimums of justice).
Cortina (1996, p. 57) claims that the skill of “xing a minimum number of
shared values, in order to make decisions that are respectful of the plurality” is a
task to be achieved by education for tolerance. In short, what is “fair” is demand-
able as a moral obligation to any citizen. e “good” is what causes happiness, but
it should not be demanded from other people, since it is, essentially, a subjective
achievement. As we all know, what is good for one person might not be good for
another. In this sense, the “good” belongs to the realm of possibilities (maximums
of happiness) and never to the realm of demands (minimums of justice).
Conclusions
e results of this study indicate that intolerance and hate speech have become
common practices in social media environments. Tolerance as a skill of MIL appears
as an answer to intolerance, and as a tool to face the hate speech against those who
are “dierent”. Menezes (1997, p. 45) states that “intolerance rejects not only the
opinions of others, but also their existence, or at least what makes life worth living:
the dignity and freedom of the person”. Intolerance and hate speech against those
who are perceived as dierent impose on them a mark of shame and social rejec-
tion. In the same line of thought, Eco (2001, p. 114) sees intolerance as an attitude
without explicit reason or doctrine to support it:
Intolerance places itself before any other doctrine. In this way,
intolerance has ideological roots, manifests itself among the animals
as territoriality, is based upon emotional, many times supercial
relations, – we cannot accept the ones dierent from us because they
have a dierent skin color, or speak a language we do not understand,
or eat frogs, dogs, monkeys, pigs, garlic or because they tattoo
themselves...
According to this author, scholars deal frequently with the doctrines of dierence,
but not enough with intolerance and hate speech. In Eco’s view, the reason for this is
that both these attitudes depart from any possibility of discussion and criticism, as
they can neither be contemplated on a reasonable level (of the reasons of morality),
nor on a rational level (of well-articulated arguments), but only on an emotional
level. at is, intolerance is, in general, angry, uncontrolled, inexplicable, and
impulsive.
Ultimately, MIL in the perspective of tolerance is not optional, but funda-
mental. And it might be more necessary and productive than we think, since it aims
to intervene in our attitudes, following the ethics of justice, and in our feelings and
intentions, following the ethics of happiness.
Marcelo Andrade & Magda Pischetola
127
References
Augras, M. Tolerância: os paradoxos, in: Teixeira, F. (org.) O diálogo inter-religioso como
armação da vida, São Paulo: Paulinas, 1997, p. 77-91
Boler, M. All Speech is Not Free: e Ethics of “Armative Action Pedagogy”. Counterpoints,
Vol. 240, Democratic Dialogue in Education: TROUBLING Speech, DISTURBING
Silence, 2004, pp. 3-13.
Carpentier, N. e concept of participation. If they have access and interact, do they really
participate? Revista Fronteiras – estudos midiáticos. Vol. 14, No. 2, 2012, pp.164-177.
Cortina, A. Ética civil e religião, São Paulo: Paulinas, 1997.
Daniels, J. Race, Civil Rights, and Hate Speech in the Digital Era. In: Everett., A.; e John,
D.; Catherine, T. Learning Race and Ethnicity: Youth and Digital Media. Edited by
MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: e
MIT Press, 2008, pp. 129–154.
Duy, M. E. Web of Hate: a Fantasy eme Analysis of the Rhetorical Vision of Hate Groups
Online. Journal of Communication Inquiry, Vol. 27 No. 3, July 2003, pp. 291-312.
Eco, U. Cinco escritos morais, Rio de Janeiro: Record, 2001.
Gee, J. P. A Situated Sociocultural Approach to Literacy and Technology, 2009. Available
at:http://www.jamespaulgee.com/node/6.
Gerstenfeld, P.; Grant,D.; Chiang, C. Hate Online: A Content Analysis of Extremist Internet
Sites. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 3, Issue 1, December 2003, pp.
29–44.
Glucksmann, A. O discurso do ódio. Rio de Janeiro: Difel, 2007
Jenkins, H. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st
Century. Chicago: e MacArthur Foundation, 2009.
Lankshear, C.; KNOBEL, M. (Eds.). A new literacies sampler. New York: Peter Lang, 2007.
Menezes, P. Tolerância e religiões, in: TEIXEIRA, F. (org.) O diálogo inter-religioso como
armação da vida, São Paulo: Paulinas, 1997, p. 39-54.
Santos, B. Reconhecer para libertar: os caminhos do cosmopolitanismo multicultural. Rio de
Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2003
Nemes, I. Regulating Hate Speech in Cyberspace: Issues of Desirability and Ecacy. Informa-
tion & Communications Technology Law. Vol. 11, Issue 3, 2002, pp. 193-220.
Soares, M. Novas práticas de leitura e escrita: letramento na cibercultura. Educ. Soc.,
Campinas. Vol. 23, n. 81, 2002, pp. 143-160. Available at:http://www.cedes.unicamp.br
Warschauer, M. Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cambridge:
MIT, 2003.
Notes
1 Monthly magazine for primary education teachers, owned by the business group Abril
Editora, which publishes content related to pedagogical innovation and the challenges of
everyday school life. See: http://revistaescola.abril.com.br/. Last access: January 2016.
2 A conditional cash transfer program, managed by the Ministry of Social Development.
See: mds.gov.br/assuntos/bolsa-familia. Last access: January 2016.
3 Available at URL: http://revistaescola.abril.com.br/pdf/kit-gay-escola-sem-homofo-
bia-mec.pdf. Last access: January 2016.
4 Available at the address URL: http://www.brasil.gov.br/educacao/2016/01/mec-nao-dis-
tribuiu-nas-escolas-livro-de-educacao-sexual-citado-em-video-na-internet. Last access:
January 2016.
Marcelo Andrade & Magda Pischetola
128
5 Nova Escola magazine provides a shortcut to this information, at the address URL: http://
revistaescola.abril.com.br/formacao/educacao-sexual-precisamos-falar-romeo-834861.
shtml. Last access: January 2016.
