| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 798.4 KB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
A liberdade de expressão enquanto direito humano fundamental, consagrado no art. 19º da DUDH, desempenha um papel crítico não só no bom funcionamento do sistema democrático, como também no desenvolvimento do indivíduo e das comunidades em que se insere. Devido a fatores como o desenvolvimento tecnológico, com vastas consequências na rápida disseminação de informação aquém e além-fronteiras, a propagação de narrativas que constituem discurso de ódio é uma preocupação destacada com frequência pelas organizações internacionais uma vez que se torna cada vez mais aparente o seu resultado prático na exclusão social e, em última instância, no incitamento à violência. Tais circunstâncias tornam evidentes as limitações do direito à liberdade de expressão previstas quer na DUDH quer no PIDCP. Ainda de salientar, como obstáculo ao trato do discurso de ódio no plano internacional, é o facto de existirem opiniões divergentes quanto à sua definição, sendo que não existe uma definição internacionalmente aceite de discurso de ódio. A dificuldade em definir este conceito reflete-se na forma como as instâncias internacionais lidam com casos relacionados com discurso de ódio. Nos dias de hoje, os cenários de conflito armado transformam-se naquilo a que designamos de guerra híbrida e, o campo de batalha, estendesse ao plano comunicacional. O impacto do discurso de ódio no avanço das agendas políticas, na mobilização da opinião pública, e na desumanização do adversário nunca foi tão aparente como no atual conflito entre a Ucrânia e a Rússia. Ambas as partes do conflito recorrem a narrativas de legitimidade dúbia ora, por um lado, para desumanizar o adversário e fragilizar a sua credibilidade internacional, ora para disseminar desinformação com propósitos e objetivos de guerra.
Freedom of expression as a fundamental human right, established in art. 19 of the UDHR, plays a critical role not only in the proper functioning of the democratic system, but also in the development of the individual and the communities in which he operates. Due to factors such as technological development, with far-reaching consequences for the rapid dissemination of information within and across borders, the manifestation of narratives that amount to hate speech is a frequently highlighted concern by international organizations as it has become increasingly apparent its practical result in social exclusion and, ultimately, in incitement to violence. Such circumstances make evident the restrictions of the right to freedom of expression enshrined both in the UDHR and in the ICCPR. Also noteworthy, as an obstacle to dealing with hate speech at the international level, is the fact that there are divergent opinions as to its definition, and there is no internationally accepted definition of hate speech. The difficulty in defining this concept is reflected in the way international bodies deal with cases related to hate speech. Nowadays, armed conflict scenarios are transformed into exactly what we call hybrid wars and, therefore, the battlefield extends to the communicational plane. The impact of hate speech on advancing political agendas, mobilizing public opinion, and dehumanizing the adversary has never been more apparent than in the current conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Both parties to the conflict resort to dubious legitimacy narratives either, on the one hand, to dehumanize the adversary and weaken its international trust, or to disseminate information with purposes and objectives of war.
Freedom of expression as a fundamental human right, established in art. 19 of the UDHR, plays a critical role not only in the proper functioning of the democratic system, but also in the development of the individual and the communities in which he operates. Due to factors such as technological development, with far-reaching consequences for the rapid dissemination of information within and across borders, the manifestation of narratives that amount to hate speech is a frequently highlighted concern by international organizations as it has become increasingly apparent its practical result in social exclusion and, ultimately, in incitement to violence. Such circumstances make evident the restrictions of the right to freedom of expression enshrined both in the UDHR and in the ICCPR. Also noteworthy, as an obstacle to dealing with hate speech at the international level, is the fact that there are divergent opinions as to its definition, and there is no internationally accepted definition of hate speech. The difficulty in defining this concept is reflected in the way international bodies deal with cases related to hate speech. Nowadays, armed conflict scenarios are transformed into exactly what we call hybrid wars and, therefore, the battlefield extends to the communicational plane. The impact of hate speech on advancing political agendas, mobilizing public opinion, and dehumanizing the adversary has never been more apparent than in the current conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Both parties to the conflict resort to dubious legitimacy narratives either, on the one hand, to dehumanize the adversary and weaken its international trust, or to disseminate information with purposes and objectives of war.
Description
Keywords
Direito à liberdade de expressão Discurso de ódio Propaganda Desumanização Ucrânia Rússia Right to freedom of expression Hate speech Propaganda Dehumanization Ukraine Russia