Livia likes Slovakia
Introduction
This activity aims to analyze hate speech. After the lesson, students know what is hate speech, they understand the meaning of far right hate speech, they know what is the value of different values such as free speech and respect for human dignity. They know which arguments they can use if the value of human dignity is attacked.
This activity is based on a lecture given by an analytical philosopher and expert on hate speech Tomas Koblizek from the Philosophical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. The lesson is the result of a project of the Association of Teachers of Civics and Social Sciences and the Academy of Sciences. The objective of the project is to bring the results of the latest academic research and reasoning to schools and adapt it for school use.
Presenting the activity:
a) analyzing hate speech, metacognition of the value of different values as presented in Czech Constitution;
b) target students 15+, estimated time 45-120 minutes;
c) secondary; d) media literacy, civics, ethics, politology;
d) involved competences.
The activity
This activity shows the hate speech of the far right in our neighbor country Slovakia. Czechoslovakia split only in 1993 and our culture as well as the language is the closest to the Czech Republic. It is easier to make an analysis on a foreign example because we are not personally involved and less biased.
In this activity, we will use a video with hate speech. As such, the video should be used only for educational purposes: https://www.napalete.sk/vsetci-za-slovensko/.
The worksheets are in czech but can be translated using Google Lens. Link to the worksheets: https://www.obcankari.cz/edukacni-material-livia-ma-rada-slovensko-nacionalismus-hatespeech
1) Individual video analysis of the form of the video, not the content. We watch it without the sound. We only use the first part with the girl.
2) After, students imagine the content. The teacher says that the video is a voice over, it means that the content was recorded and added after the shooting.
3) Students present their version of the content from the point of view of the protagonist who´s name is Livia. The purpose of this activity is to show the contrast between the beautiful form and the content.
4) Students listen to the real content. The teacher says that it is not always clear what Livia means by her words so we will analyze the text closely. Collaborative work in pairs on the worksheet with the transcript.
5) We check the work together.
6) The teacher presents the definition of hate speech and asks if Livia´s speech corresponds to the definition.
7) We proceed with the following activity on the worksheet – are the following texts or video examples hate speech or not? Why? Individual work or work in pairs.
8) Individual analysis of one part the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (exercise 5) and the crucial question: Do all human rights have the same value? Let's compare freedom of speech and equality.
9) Individual writing: Censorship. Would you ban any of the above texts? Why yes, why no?
Assessment
Students do self and peer assessment when working in pairs or checking their answers altogether with the teacher.
Rubrics for assessment of the writing can be done together using Magic school AI Rubric Generator https://app.magicschool.ai/tools/rubric-generator or presented by the teacher:
| Criteria | 3 Points | 2 Points | 1 Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Introduction | The introduction clearly and effectively presents the topic and provides necessary background information on hatespeech and censorship. It includes a strong thesis statement that clearly states the position. | The introduction provides some background information on hatespeech and censorship, but it may lack clarity in presenting the topic and/or the thesis statement. | The introduction is weak and does not effectively present the topic or provide necessary background information. The thesis statement is either missing or unclear. |
| Arguments and Evidence | The essay presents strong arguments both for and against censorship of hatespeech. Each argument is supported with relevant and compelling evidence from credible sources. | The essay presents arguments for and against censorship of hatespeech, but some arguments may lack depth or be weakly supported with evidence. | The essay lacks strong arguments or fails to provide adequate evidence to support the arguments. |
| Understanding of Different Values | The essay demonstrates a thorough understanding of different values such as freedom of speech and equality, and effectively analyzes how these values relate to the censorship of hatespeech. | The essay shows some understanding of different values, but the analysis of their relationship to the censorship of hatespeech may be limited or unclear. | The essay does not demonstrate a clear understanding of different values or fails to analyze their relationship to the censorship of hatespeech. |
| Organization | The essay is well-organized, with a clear and logical structure. Ideas are presented coherently and transitions between paragraphs are smooth. | The essay is generally organized, but there may be some inconsistencies in structure or minor issues with coherence and transitions. | The essay lacks organization and structure. Ideas are presented disjointedly and transitions between paragraphs are abrupt or unclear. |
| Conclusion | The conclusion effectively summarizes the main arguments and reinforces the thesis statement. It leaves the reader with a strong impression or a call to action. | The conclusion provides a basic summary of the main arguments, but may lack impact or a clear connection to the thesis statement. | The conclusion is weak and does not effectively summarize the main arguments or reinforce the thesis statement. |
| Language and Mechanics | The essay demonstrates a high level of proficiency in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and sentence structure. The language is appropriate for an academic essay. | The essay contains some errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or sentence structure, but they do not significantly impede understanding. The language is generally appropriate. | The essay has numerous errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or sentence structure that impede understanding. The language may be inappropriate or inconsistent. |
Authorship
Irena Eibenova, Asociation of Teachers of Civics and Social Sciences, Czech Republic, 00420 607005646
In collaboration with the Philosophical Institute of Academy of Sciences of Czech Republic.
Return to our collection of good teaching practices...!
