Brazilian advisory rating and criticism of objective

classification: Adventure Time analysis based on violence

rating criteria

Pedro Sarmento1, Nilton Gamba Junior2 and Paula Tavares3

1 PUC-Rio, Department of Arts & Design, ID+, IPCA, Design School,

pedrofsarmento@gmail.com

2 PUC-Rio, Department of Arts & Design,

gambajunior@gmail.com

3 ID+, IPCA, Design School, ptavares@ipca.pt

Abstract. This paper discusses the role of the Brazilian advisory rating system and the application
of this method. To this end, childhood perspectives are debated with a focus on the agents involved
(Brazilian state, TV stations, entertainment enterprises, etc.). The Brazilian advisory rating scenario
is presented, followed by an investigation of the classification method and a visual analysis of the
advisory rating guide (Guia da Classificação Indicativa, in Portuguese). This guide provides criteria to
analyze six episodes of the cartoon, Adventure Time, which was chosen due to its mainstream reach,
narrative, and visual complexity. The research suggests two critical points. The first point is difficulty
and inconsistency in the selection of inappropriate images for children. Results show it is not possible
to establish fixed and straightforward relations between image (the cartoon) and verbal text (advisory
rating criteria) since the verbal and visual elements suggest multiple meanings. Moreover, the
polysemy aspect of language allows the naturalization of different interpretations. The second point
is the importance of looking at the subjectivity of children. Children are not conceived as agents, but
as passive subjects and their thinking and opinion of improper content are not part of the rating
process. It is important to gain insight into what children think of the media to raise critical thinking
in the face of mass communication. Consequently, children should not be considered as responsive
objects, but the active agents of their own education. Since images can indicate multiple meanings
(polysemy) also become part of the senses of shared reality, they should be key to understanding
how children interact with media and what they think about it. In that sense, this paper reveals
problems in the Brazilian advisory rating system and endorses media literacy actions as the best
solution for the issue of children and media.
Keywords: Brazilian, advisory, rating, children, media, animation, adventure, time.

1 Introduction

In the context of children and the media, this paper analyses application of the Brazilian
advisory rating system and reveals difficulties in obtaining an objective classification. As
an alternative solution, it proposes the pursuit of actions that can empower children to
criticize media from a literacy perspective. To this end, in item 2, the Brazilian advisory
rating system is discussed with a focus on the agents involved (Brazilian state, TV stations,
and entertainment enterprises) in order to understand childhood perspectives. The studies
of Ariès and Postman are cited to address this debate. Item 3 contains an analysis of
contemporary cartoon (Adventure Time) based on the violence criteria proposed by the
Brazilian advisory rating. The results of this analysis differ from the advisory rating,
suggesting issues of objectiveness. These issues are discussed in item 4 based on the studies
of Bakhtin and Rancière. The conclusion suggests the main point should be how children
naturalize their behavior, understanding, and opinions in their relationship with the media,
rather than the improper content highlighted by the rating process. In other words, rather
than enhance prohibition, it is more important to resignify media meanings and promote
mechanisms that critically empower children.
This research is included in the DHIS (Laboratory of Story Design) study group of the
PUC-Rio (Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro) in partnership with the CAOS
(Communication, Art, Object, Synergies) research group at ID+ (Research Institute for
Design, Media and Culture) and IPCA (Polytechnic Institute of Cávado and the Ave). It
was funded with a scholarship from the Coordination for the Improvement of the Higher
Level Personnel of the Brazilian Ministry of Education (Bolsista da CAPES/Bolsa de
Doutorado Sanduíche no Exterior/Process no. 88881.133241/2016-01).

2 Brazilian Advisory Rating, Childhood, and Media

The Brazilian advisory rating system provides age rating information to families for TV
programs to protect children from unsafe content. The system also classifies products for
cinema exhibitions, electronic games, applications, and RPG. Two childhood concepts are
put into perspective to understand the Brazilian advisory rating system: standard and
contemporary childhood.
Philippe Ariès’ [1] explains how childhood senses are based on society. In seventeen
century Europe, the emerging idea was that children are special human beings with
different needs. Consequently, many family habits started to shift, such as separated spaces
for children in the home, separating sexuality from daily life, playing with toys as a unique
infancy experience, etc. Within this context, several levels of formal education extend the
gap between shaped man and developing child. The difference between proper and
improper content is reinforced and a children’s culture is established with, among other
things, protecting childhood with prohibitions, such as not allowing children to access
inappropriate contents. As children get older, their parents authorize greater access to
content, based on the idea that children must go through several stages before they are
ready to watch adult content. This process leads to the creation of information
serialization, in which each age group has a specific content restriction. In this
investigation, this concept of infancy is termed standard childhood due to its hegemonic
pattern, although this is not the only understanding of childhood. The Brazilian advisory
rating system is based on this model given its characteristic age level classification, dual
perspective (proper and improper), and view of children from the context of protection.
Neil Postman’s studies [2] discuss another historical period. In the twentieth century,
technologies such as radio, TV, and the Internet enabled widespread access to information.
TV stations, for instance, broadcast the same TV shows on prime time and both children
and adults watch the same content. Furthermore, new technologies increase access to
information. On the Internet, children can browse a massive amount of data with possibly
improper or negative content. Thus, Postman suggests our sense of shame has been
undermined. Here, shame is our sense of embarrassment in the presence of children, often
leading adults to refrain from talking about certain subjects in front of them or not allowing
children to see certain books, TV shows, and games. As technologies provide greater
access to information and fiction, more children are exposed to originally improper
content and our sense of shame becomes weaker. In his thesis, Postman states the
disappearance of childhood, which is also the name of his book. This statement, however,
shows an inconsistency since it implies full integration between infantile and adult cultures,
whereas media products (with different target audiences) and the current habits of children
indicate the opposite.
In the twenty-first century, the studies of Sonia Livingstone [3] point towards another
direction, whereby children’s digital rights and the changing trends are related to the
internet age. According to Livingstone, it is vital to investigate the needs and desires of
children in order to enhance their media literacy skills. In other words, they must be
encouraged to become critical subjects and individuals who know how to deal with media
influence in a healthy way. In that sense, standard childhood is undermined and opens a
new space for others perspectives: contemporary childhood is understood according to
the current practices of children, in which broad access to originally improper content
becomes a critical issue.
The Brazilian advisory rating deals with these two childhood concepts and the advisory
rating manual (Manual da Nova Classificação Indicativa, in Portuguese) [4] explains the goal of
this mechanism, which is to provide educative tools that empower society (parents,
educators, etc.) in relation to the mass communication industry. Moreover, the advisory
rating manual proposes mediation of two important principles and related legislation.
Firstly, the Brazilian statute for children and adolescents (Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente,
in Portuguese) ensures the protection of youths from unsafe conditions, including access
to inappropriate content. Secondly, freedom of speech, assured by the Brazilian
Constitution of 1988, ensures the expression of opinions and freedom of the media to
prevent censorship. These principles arose from a dispute between advisory rating
(representing the Brazilian state) and TV stations. Advisory rating advocates the protection
of children and discourages their widespread access to information. This view is integrated
with the standard childhood concept. In contrast, TV stations and associated
entertainment enterprises view children as a growing audience and an expanding consumer
public, meaning they require broader media access and no legal restrictions. The more time
children watch TV, the greater the potential profit. This view is integrated with the
contemporary childhood concept.
In 2016, a legal dispute involving advisory rating was initiated. Based on this dispute,
the advisory system recommended suitable age ratings to parents and society and
established a daily schedule during which certain TV show cannot be broadcast. For
example, a TV show rated as “inappropriate for people under 18” can only be transmitted
after 11 p.m. The outcome of the legal dispute favored no hour restrictions based on the
argument that the advisory rating can only recommend and not censor [5]. Indeed, there
is no censorship in the media. The real issue is about consumerism and the threat of
reducing TV audiences. Communication researchers Marina Carvalho and Gésio Passos
state, “What TV stations desire is 'freedom' to broadcast any TV programs at any time. TV
stations do not comply with their side in the 'social contract' of child protection.”[6]. Other
studies suggest similar problems with advisory rating systems at international level.
Thomas Hammarberg [7], ambassador of the Swedish government on humanitarian issues,
indicates difficulties in the application of advisory rating and states, “TV orientations in
several countries, including a restriction on broadcast hours, may not be fulfilled. In
addition, there seems to be no control over the vast amount of violent broadcasts each
hour.”[7]. These observations reveal a tension between standard and contemporary
childhood. The Brazilian advisory rating system complies with this requirement and
functions as a mediation mechanism to build a better relationship between TV and
children. In this regard, this investigation looks into this mechanism and its application.

3 Analysis of the Cartoon Adventure Time based on Violence Rating

Criteria

The Brazilian advisory rating system provides a website, a manual, and a guide for the
general public. The site contains information on the system and search engine users can
use to look up the age rating of a given program, such as a TV show. The manual explains
how the system works in details. The guide (Guia Prático da Classificação Indicativa, in
Portuguese) [8] presents rating criteria divided into three areas: violence, drugs, and sex.
Each area contains several topics regarding representation and social behaviors. For
instance, violence includes topics such as bodily harm, corpse exposure, mutilation, etc.
Each topic is related to one of six rating levels: free, 10+, 12+, 14+, 16+, and 18+,
respectively, free for all ages and inappropriate for viewers under 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18
years of age. The guide also presents aggravating and attenuating factors. Based on this
model, evaluators can judge and rate content. Furthermore, not all audiovisual contents
are rated equally since contents related to journalism, news, publicity, sports, and others
are not classified so as not to breach the freedom of speech act. Some content is rated by
its producer in an auto-classification process. In these cases, advisory rating monitors
broadcasting after it is on air, as in the case of TV programs. Other content, such as films
for cinema, DVD and video, are previously classified.
The manual of the Brazilian advisory rating system provides three classification stages:
factual description, thematic description, and gradation (or rating). The first stage refers to
a descriptive and narrative report of the content. The next stage, thematic description,
refers to context and thematic issues related to the content. Based on these two stages, the
third stage, gradation (or rating), consists of indicating one of the six rating levels. The
manual does not specify how many evaluators participated in the process or if the
evaluators use a process to ensure rating reliability. In addition, it does not specify if all the
content or part of the content is evaluated or if this evaluation is made by the Brazilian
advisory rating system or by the producers (self-classification process).
Brazilian advisory rating proposes a common objectivity, meaning that everyone should
have the same results. The manual states, “Anyone can obtain a similar rating if the content
is analyzed using the same criteria and indicators.” [4]. Our hypothesis is that this
objectivity does not occur; different individuals can obtain extremely different ratings. To
confirm this hypothesis, we conducted an analysis based on Brazilian advisory rating
criteria to review episodes of a contemporary mainstream animated cartoon and correlated
it with the classification indicated by the Brazilian advisory rating (the Brazilian advisory
rating site [9] allows users to browse their content classifications). We acted as evaluators
and analyzed the content based on the same criteria. As restriction factors, criteria were
limited to violent topics and analysis was restricted to a part of the entire animated cartoon
(strictly, six episodes). These restrictions enabled a more focused analysis. Regardless of
the restrictions of topics and duration, the selected cartoon should have obtained the same
results in the Brazilian advisory rating analysis and in our analysis.
The animation Adventure Time was selected because of its extreme complexity as a
cartoon and because it is an international mainstream show. Narrative and esthetics
characteristics suggest Adventure Time is closer to the contemporary childhood concept
since a large number of issues and genres are explored in this show. The Land of Ooo, the
cartoon’s backdrop, displays a multitude of themes. One of these themes is the medieval
adventure genre, in which heroes set out on quests, find treasure, fight monsters, and
engage in sword fights. Another theme is the science fiction genre, represented by the
character of a scientist called Princess Bubblegum, who deals with futuristic technology
such as lasers guns, complex computers, and spaceships. Moreover, Adventure Time takes
place after The Great Mushroom War, an apocalyptic event that left The Land of Ooo in
ruins. The terror genre is also identified in the form of Marceline, a vampire queen who
can change her body into monster forms, and daughter of a vampire king who rules The
Nightosphere, a hellish kind of place. The baby animation genre is represented by The
Candy Kingdom inhabited by the Candy People, who are characters based on candies, fruit
and sweets. The castle and buildings in this kingdom are made of sugar and everybody is
happy all the time. All these features suggest Adventure Time targets different age groups.
The show holds narrative and esthetic elements related to diverging target audiences and
promotes the proximity of content for various age groups. Consequently, it undermines
information serialization and proposes a complex contemporary media scenario.
A search of the term “Adventure Time” on Brazilian advisory rating site [9] results on
six different ratings related to this cartoon’s first and second seasons. In these items, the
same content is classified multiple times with different ratings. In five items, for example,
Adventure Time is rated as “inappropriate for viewers under 10 years of age” or “10+”,
and only one item is rated as “free”. Based on this information, the first three episodes of
seasons one and two were selected for the visual analysis. The analysis only covers violence
criteria since this is the area of interest of the investigation. Therefore, in addition to the
violence, the cartoon may expose viewers to drugs and sex. Below, a presentation of the
analysis results. Table 1 shows the relationship between age rating and number of times
violence representations are selected.

Table 1. Relationship of the occurrence of violence in each Adventure Time episode.

Episodes/ Season 1 Season 1 Season 1 Season 2 Season 2 Season 2

Total
Violence criteria Ep. 1 Ep. 2 Ep. 3 Ep. 1 Ep. 2 Ep. 3

(free)
10 1 4 21 11 4 51
Fantasy violence
(10+)
Weapons with 3 0 0 3 2 0 8
violence
(10+)
0 0 1 13 2 3 19
Fear/Stress
(10+)
0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Anguish
(10+)
Bones and skeletons
0 0 0 0 1 0 1
with traces of
violence
 (12+)
6 1 4 20 10 7 48
Violent act
(12+)
2 0 0 3 0 0 5
Bodily harm
(12+)
Natural or accidental 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
violent death
(12+)
3 0 0 0 0 1 4
Corpse exposure
(16+)
1 0 2 2 0 1 6
Mutilation
(16+)
Gratuitous
6 1 4 18 9 4 42
violence/violence
normalization
(18+)
0 0 0 3 0 1 4
High impact violence

In our analysis, some violence topics (such as “high impact violence”, “gratuitous
violence”, “anguish”, and others) hinder a precise selection due to the ambiguous
definition and raise doubts in several representations of violence. These doubts could be
clarified if we had access to the factual and thematic descriptions of Adventure Time.
However, the website indicates a link to download the “abstract of content analysis”, but
the link is missing. Furthermore, there is no information on whether the rating process
was realized by the Brazilian advisory rating evaluators or by the cartoon producers (self-
classification process). These facts reveal many gaps in the rating methodology, public
transparency, and objectivity that undermine the legitimacy of the Brazilian advisory rating
system.
In spite of the doubts and ambiguous meanings, representations of violence were
detected 55 times in our analysis. The extended analysis containing freeze frames of each
representation of violence in the cartoon was uploaded to an online archive [10]. Our
analysis indicates a great number of “12+” and “16+” violence representation topics and
the presence of “18+” criteria. We were able to rate Adventure Time as “16+” or “18+”
content. Therefore, the results differ from the Brazilian advisory rating indication in the
website, where Adventure Time is rated as “free” or “10+” content. These differences
suggest the objective proposal of this rating system has not been consolidated and criteria
definitions are not consensual. Furthermore, the interpretation of this content resulted in
diverging assessments and ratings. This topic is discussed below.

4 Difficulties obtaining an Objective Classification

The critical reflections of Mikhail Bakhtin and Jacques Rancière are relevant here to better
understand the difficulties establishing objective analysis results. Bakhtin [11, 12]
emphasizes the polysemy of language, in which the same sign can refer to multiple
meanings depending on subject background, context characteristic, social condition, etc.
In this regard, utterances are not isolated; it is all connected. Every utterance is part of the
communication flow and all utterances are links of this flow and the answers to other
utterances. The conclusiveness of utterances indicates the possibility to provide an answer
and alternation of speaking subjects. In this case, language is understood as an unfinished
project, a continuum. The subject relation with the object is never concluded but always
proposed. Bakhtin explains the internal dialectic of signs, in which conflicts emerge in the
same sign between the different values and social interests. Therefore, language is not a
pacific ambient, but a fighting arena. Moreover, utterances are not neutral and stable since
social practices define the arrangement of language. In a scenario of a living language,
Bakhtin considers genres of speech have relatively stable utterance types rather than fixed
ones. In other words, genre does not have a permanent classification, but a temporary
arrangement that is constantly shifting due to social change.
For instance, infantile and adult genres (or safe and unsafe genres) are constructed and
established from the related social practice, in this case, to standard and contemporary
childhood. However, this is not a fixed scenario. As mentioned, Postman indicates changes
in children’s habits on account of their broad access to content. Proper and improper
definitions are shifted and genre representation also changes in this process. Inappropriate
settings are in constant adjustment and may have an internal contradictory nature. In that
sense, the proposal of the Brazilian advisory is not a final decision, but it can be understood
as an element in language flow. Violence criteria and the guide’s topics are utterances that
can be replied by animators, children, parents, and society. For example, violence
representations in earlier cartoons, such as Tom & Jerry, Bugs Bunny, and Woody
Woodpecker, have many differences in relation to contemporary cartoons, such as
Adventure Time. Therefore, just as dictionaries do not define how words are created, the
advisory rating guide does not define how inappropriate content for children is socially
established.
This reflection enables a better understanding of the matter; that is, the polysemy aspect
of language allows different naturalization of interpretations. The relationship between
verbal and visual is not completely stable or predictable. As seen above, different meanings
can be attributed to the same visual sign. Furthermore, naturalized violence representations
may not be perceived in less critical contexts. In this perspective, the establishment of
completely fixed and straightforward relations between image (cartoons) and verbal text
(advisory rating criteria) is not possible. Interpretations can dramatically change regarding
different people and contexts, which is the basis of the disagreement between our analysis
outcome and the results of the advisory rating system. In order to reinforce this conclusion,
two examples are presented below.

Fig. 1. Representations of decapitation in animated cartoon (Adventure Time), terror movies (The
Horror of Party Beach and A Nightmare on Elm Street), and SHOA reportage.
 The first example is the mutilation topic. Figure 1 shows a more specific mutilation type
(beheading) in several audiovisual contents, namely Adventure Time, The Horror of Party
Beach, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and an SHOA reportage. As shown in the images, all
representations are connected to mutilation but portray different understandings of
context and genre. In Adventure Time, it is probably assumed the images do not harm
children. Despite the beheading, the animation genre is usually naturalized as appropriate
content for children and some people may not explicitly detect decapitation because
animations are perceived as light content. In both horror movies, beheading
representations are considered inappropriate for children and this genre is normally
naturalized as improper for this audience. In the last case, the news explicitly shows a real
decapitation and it has crossed the line between fiction and reality. It will probably be
considered improper content although the Brazilian advisory rating cannot classify it since,
as already mentioned, journalistic programs are not rated due to the freedom of speech
act. In summary, the same topic of mutilation is represented in content considered both
proper and improper for children. This criterion is not a distinctive mark of differentiation.
In each visual representation, it suggests not only different meanings but an extreme
variation of violence.

Fig. 2. Violence similarities in different genres. Top: animation (Adventure Time). Bottom: horror
film (Hannibal), anime (Call me Tonight and Elfen Lied) and martial arts film (Bruce Lee’s The
Game of Death).

For the second example, Figure 2 presents the violence of Adventure Time next to
violence representation of others genres. Viewing these images side by side creates a visual
link, where terror, martial arts and anime (Japanese animation) are often naturalized as
inappropriate for children. However, this similarity proposes a continuity as if these themes
can slip into the children’s genre. Access to violent images in cartoons suggests children
have implicit contact with the visual elements of inappropriate genres and the borders
between proper and improper genres are thin and reveal similarities. Language, as a
continuum network, allows children to make comparisons and build a path of correlation.
In this perspective, mediation mechanisms should focus on relations children create in the
media scenario. Emphasis on isolated content, as made by the Brazilian advisory rating,
does not seem sufficient to resolve the problem.
This reflection agrees more with the thinking of Rancière [13] about intolerable images
in arts. For him, showing or not showing horror images is not the main point since an
image never stands alone. The image is viewed not as the duplicate of a thing, but as an
element of a certain sense of reality. In addition to representative aspects, images are
integrated into a system of visibility related to common sense into shareable sensible data.
Rating a unique audiovisual content as if it were secluded from other themes assumes
children do not link multiple content and genres in social practice. In fact, children are
known to be agents of creating meaning and they correlate different content with their
own reality. Therefore, the main point should not be whether to show or not to show
improper content, but whether to ask important questions such as what kind of children’s
habits and moral issues do media images propose? How do we create better realities for
children?
In this sense, Sonia Livingstone’s perspective, “If children remain invisible in research
and policy debates, nothing much is likely to change”, is endorsed [3]. The idea is to listen
more carefully to children in order to create better mediation mechanisms. In other words,
children should be included in the process of their own protection. Rather than depending
on adults to prevent children from accessing unsafe content, we should teach children to
deal with media in a healthy way. This is possible by enhancing the critical perspective in
children.

5 Conclusion

The discussion presented in this paper indicates the rating process is not the key answer
to the issue of media and children. Focusing not on improper representations, but on
children’s behavior and thinking seems an alternative solution. The Brazilian advisory
rating system gives priority to preventing children’s access to inappropriate content rather
than evaluating children’s opinion on this content. Indeed, what children really think about
violence representation is not part of the classification process. Contradictorily, the final
objective is to provide better education to children while protecting and excluding children.
Evidently, this discrepancy disturbs the whole process. Children will continue to create
relations with media content and have their own ideas and emotions regardless of the
suggestions of the Brazilian advisory rating. The disparity in the results of the Brazilian
advisory rating and this visual analysis indicates objectivity is being undermined and the
importance of looking at children’s subjectivity is being ignored. It is important to know
what children think about media to raise critical thinking in the face of mass
communication. Otherwise, the process eventually becomes self-centred and socially
inexpressive.
This paper suggests the main point should be how children naturalize behavior,
understandings, and opinions in their relation to media rather than focus on improper
access to content. In this sense, it is important to view children not as responsive objects,
but as active agents of their own education. Since images can indicate multiple meanings
(polysemy) and they are also elements of reality senses and part of the naturalization
processes, the main objective should be to understand how children interact with media
and listen to what they think about it. In other words, the key is to not enhance prohibition.
On the contrary, the key is to resignify the media signs by promoting mechanisms that
critically empower children to deal with media influence.
Europe has achieved great results in media literacy projects and the European
Audiovisual Observatory report [14] revealed a main focus on critical aspects. A wide range
of media literacy approaches related to different contexts in several countries puts
emphasis on teaching critical aspects, namely the significance of enabling children to
question the influence of media. Two important international projects worth mentioning
are Safer Internet and EU Kids Online. In contrast, studies of Monica Fantin [15] reveal
heavy investments on technical issues in Brazil and the teaching of ICT (information and
communications technology) to enhance children’s operational skills, but a failure to
enhance critical skills. Furthermore, Fantin explains, “The fact that it does not ‘officially’
exist as a mandatory class or transversal theme means that media education continues to
be regarded only as a pedagogical resource and not as an object of study that is articulated
with other fields of knowledge. This is reflected in delays, in comparison to other countries
where media education is more consolidated and in the distancing between the current
curriculum and the emerging questions of contemporary culture.” [15]. Thus, instead of
enhancing prohibition mechanisms (as preferred by the Brazilian advisory rating system),
it may be wiser to invest in Brazilian media literacy, including public policy, educational
methods, and research support. The extreme variety of approaches in European media
literacy, for example, can be tested as possibilities of media education in Brazil. All these
factors could provide better solutions and an alternative for the Brazilian context.

References

1. Ariès, P.: Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life. Knopf, New York (1962)
2. Postman, N. The Disappearance of Childhood. Vintage Books, USA (1994)
3. Livingstone, Sonia: Children's Digital Rights: a Priority. Intermedia, 42 (4/5). 20--24 (2014)
4. Ministério da Justiça/Secretaria Nacional de Justiça: Manual da Nova Classificação Indicativa.
SNJ, Brasília (2006)
5. Revista Eletrônica Consultor Jurídico, https://www.conjur.com.br/2016-ago-31/classificacao-
indicativa-pedagogica-nao-censuradora-define-stf
6. Carvalho, M.M., Passos, G.T.S.: Classificação Indicativa: Os Obstáculos para Efetivar uma
Conquista da Constituição Federal. In: Desafios e Perspectivas da Classificação Indicativa, pp.
11--23. Ministério da Justiça/Secretaria Nacional de Justiça, Brasília (2014)
7. Hammarberg, T.: Crianças e Influências Nocivas da Mídia: O Significado da Convenção da ONU.
In: A Criança e a Violência na Mídia, pp. 23--34. UNESCO, Brasília (1999)
8. Ministério da Justiça/Secretaria Nacional de Justiça: Guia Prático da Classificação Indicativa. SNJ,
Brasília (2012)
9. Site da Classificação Indicativa, http://www.justica.gov.br/seus-direitos/classificacao
10. Analysis of the Cartoon Adventure Time based on Violence Rating Criteria,
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zwmdS03zOWbWlWcWmdIQEfHUytlnJpNp/view?usp=sh
aring
11. Bakhtin, M. M. Marxism and the philosophy of language. Seminar Press, New York (1973)
12. Bakhtin, M. M. Estética da Criação Verbal. Editora WMF Martins Fontes, São Paulo (2011)
13. Ranciére, J.: The Emancipated Espectador. Verso, London (2009)
14. European Audiovisual Observatory. Mapping of Media Literacy Practices and Actions in EU-28.
Strasbourg (2016)
15. Fantin, M.: Contexts, Perspectives and Challenges for Media Education in Brazil. In: Agentes e
Vozes: um Panorama da Mídia-Educação no Brasil, Portugal e Espanha, pp. 49—58. The
International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth and Media, Gothenburg (2014)