This paper provides a legislative and jurisprudential comparative of European and U.S. case Law on humour. Whilst the Europe-U.S. comparison, in the ambit of expression, has been looked at extensively, there has yet to be a focus on the varying ways in which humour is treated in the two spheres. What will become evident is the intricacy of cultivating just legal tests to be used by the judiciary in deciphering an inherently abstract theme. At the core of these tests at the European level, is a balancing exercise between the right to offend and the right to be free from offence. However, the multitude of available interpretative routes, in addition to the array of differing human responses to humour, renders such tests and their application legally fragile. This reality raises concerns vis-à-vis the fundamental right of freedom of expression and becomes particularly topical within the current digital age and the ‘polarizing dynamics of social media.’ Godioli (2020:1) The analysis will demonstrate that humour receives much greater protection in the U.S. Framework due to the First Amendment whereas the highest regional human rights court in Europe, namely the European Court of Human Rights is quick to limit humorous speech on grounds of offending others, thereby demonstrating a backsliding of the fundamental freedom of expression, including humorous expression in the region.
Benatar, D. (1999). ‘Prejudice in jest: When racial and gender humor harms’. Public Affairs Quarterly 13 (2), pp. 191-203.
Bernstein, D. E. (2003). You Can’t Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Anti-Discrimination Laws. Washington: Cato Institute.
Billig, M. (2005). Laugher and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humour. California: Sage.
Bradshaw, P. (2006). ‘Borat: Cultural learnings of America for make benefit glorious nation of Kazakhstan - review’. The Guardian (28 October 2006).
Bremmer, J. (1991). ‘Jokes, jokers and jokebooks in ancient Greek culture’, in Bremmer, J. & Roodenburg, H. (eds.), A Cultural History of Humour, Oxford, Boston: Polity, pp. 11-18.
Freud, S. (1960). Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, (Ed: James Strachey). New York: Norton.
Friend, T. (2002). ‘What’s so funny? A scientific attempt to discover why we laugh?’ New Yorker, 11 November 2002, pp. 78-93.
Godioli, A. (2020). ‘Cartoon controversies at the European Court of Human Rights: Towards forensic humour studies’. Open Library of Humanities 6 (1), pp. 1-35.
Husband, C. (1988). ‘Racist humour and racist ideology in British television, or I laughed till you cried’, in Powell, C. et al (eds.), Humour in Society, New York: Macmillan, pp. 149-178.
Klausen, J. (2009). The Cartoons that Shook the World. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kuipers, G. (2011). ‘The politics of humour in the public sphere: Cartoons, power and modernity in the first transnational humour scandal’, European Journal of Cultural Studies 14 (1), pp. 63-80
Limon, J. (2000). Stand-Up Comedy in Theory or, Abjection in America. Town: Duke University Press 2000.
Little, L. E. (2009). ‘Regulating funny: Humour and the law’. Cornell Law Review 94 (5), pp.1245-1279.
Lockyer, S. & Pickering, M. (2008). ‘You must be joking: The sociological critique of humour and comic media’, Sociology Compass 2 (3), pp. 808-820.
Martin, R. A. (2000). ‘Humour and laughter’, in Kazadin A. E (ed.), Encyclopedia of Psychology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (2005). Oxford: Oxford University Press
Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved December 10, 2021 from https://www.lexico.com/definition/humour.
Pascal, B. (1897). ‘Géométrie-Finesse II – Fragment no. 2/2.
Quinn B. A. (2000). ‘The paradox of complaining: Law, humor and harassment in the everyday work world’. Law and Sociology Inquiry 25 (4), pp. 1151-1185.
Radin, M. (1927). ‘Freedom of speech in ancient Athens’. The American Journal of Philology 48(3), pp. 215-218.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2020), ‘Philosophy of humour’, California: Stanford University Press.
William, L. (2009). ‘Sacha Baron Cohen, The mysterious master of public misbehaviour’. The Telegraph, 6 June 2009.
European Court of Human Rights
Alves da Silva v. Portugal, Application No. 41665/07 (ECHR, 20 October 2009).
EON v. France, Application No. 26118/10 (ECHR 14 March 2013).
Féret v. Belgium, Application No 15615/07 (10 December 2009).
Handyside v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 5493/72 (ECHR 1 December 1976).
Leroy v. France, App. no. 36109/03 (ECHR 2 October 2008).
M’Bala M’Bala v. France, Application Number 25239/13 (ECHR 20 October 2015).
Müller and Others v. Switzerland, Application No. 10737/84 (ECHR 24 May 1998).
Palomo Sanchez and Others v. Spain, Application nos. 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, (ECHR 12 September 2011).
Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria, Application No. 68354/01 (ECHR 25 April 2007).
Court of Justice of the European Union
Johan Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds VZW v. Helena Vandersteen and Others (2014). ECLI:EU:C:2014:2132
U.S. Case Law
Augustin v. Yale Club of N.Y. City, No. 03-CV-1924 (KMK)WL 2690289 (2006).
Baskerville v. Culligan International Company, 50 F.3d 428,7th Cir.*1995).
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music 510 US 569 (1994).
Goede v. Mare Rest., No. 95 C 5238, WL 769 (1995).
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation 438 US 726 (1978).
Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions 132 P.3d 211 Cal. (2006).
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 82 (1998).
Nitsche v. CEO of Osage Valley Electric Cooperative 446 F.3d (2006).
Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards Inc, 760 F. Supp 1486 (M.S. Dla.1991) 1498 (1991).
Yankee Publishing Inc. v. News America Publishing Inc 809 F. Supp 267 (1992).
Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell, 485 US 46 (1988).
UN Human Rights Committee
Ross v. Canada, Communication No. 736/97, (18 October 2000).
UN Human Rights Council, Farida Shaheed, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights: The Right to Freedom of Artistic Expression and Creativity’ (2013).
UN General Comment No. 34: Article 19: Freedom of opinion and expression: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (2011).
ZB v. France, Application Number 46883/15: Written Submissions of Article 19.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2021 The European Journal of Humour Research