Publication

Cartoon Controversies at the European Court of Human Rights: Towards Forensic Humor Studies

Godioli, A., 15-Jun-2020, In : Open Library of Humanities. 6, 1, p. 1-35 35 p., 22.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

APA

Godioli, A. (2020). Cartoon Controversies at the European Court of Human Rights: Towards Forensic Humor Studies. Open Library of Humanities, 6(1), 1-35. [22]. https://doi.org/10.16995/olh.571

Author

Godioli, Alberto. / Cartoon Controversies at the European Court of Human Rights : Towards Forensic Humor Studies. In: Open Library of Humanities. 2020 ; Vol. 6, No. 1. pp. 1-35.

Harvard

Godioli, A 2020, 'Cartoon Controversies at the European Court of Human Rights: Towards Forensic Humor Studies', Open Library of Humanities, vol. 6, no. 1, 22, pp. 1-35. https://doi.org/10.16995/olh.571

Standard

Cartoon Controversies at the European Court of Human Rights : Towards Forensic Humor Studies. / Godioli, Alberto.

In: Open Library of Humanities, Vol. 6, No. 1, 22, 15.06.2020, p. 1-35.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Vancouver

Godioli A. Cartoon Controversies at the European Court of Human Rights: Towards Forensic Humor Studies. Open Library of Humanities. 2020 Jun 15;6(1):1-35. 22. https://doi.org/10.16995/olh.571


BibTeX

@article{3941a0462f6a4f1ca8e1f20378b233ef,
title = "Cartoon Controversies at the European Court of Human Rights: Towards Forensic Humor Studies",
abstract = "How can judges draw a line between innocent jokes and potentially harmful ones? Due to its inherent link with ambiguity, humor is an extremely arduous testing ground for the legal regulation of freedom of expression—all the more so in the case of cartoons and other forms of highly condensed, predominantly visual humor. The juridical challenges presented by humorous expression are particularly topical in the digital age, as shown by the mediatic impact of recent humor scandals from Jyllands-Posten to Charlie Hebdo; nevertheless, the potential for interdisciplinary dialogue between law and humor studies is still strikingly underexplored. This paper aims to contribute to the development of forensic humor studies by analyzing a corpus of 10 rulings delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), revolving around controversial examples of predominantly visual humor. After identifying the criteria underpinning the selected judgements and discussing the problems posed by the current ECtHR approach, the present study sets out to illustrate how insights coming from humor studies can prove instrumental in tackling those problems. Building on theoretical models proposed by Wayne Booth and Paul Simpson, it will be argued that a closer dialogue with humor studies can be of particular help to judges dealing with three key questions: does the impugned text clearly signal its humorous or satirical intent? What is the aim or message hiding behind the humorous surface? And to what extent should the author be held accountable for different (and potentially dangerous) interpretations of the same text?",
keywords = "Humor, Freedom of Expression, hate speech, European Court of Human Rights, Law and Humanities, HATE SPEECH, CONVENTION",
author = "Alberto Godioli",
year = "2020",
month = jun,
day = "15",
doi = "10.16995/olh.571",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "1--35",
journal = "Open Library of Humanities",
issn = "2056-6700",
publisher = "Open Library of Humanities",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cartoon Controversies at the European Court of Human Rights

T2 - Towards Forensic Humor Studies

AU - Godioli, Alberto

PY - 2020/6/15

Y1 - 2020/6/15

N2 - How can judges draw a line between innocent jokes and potentially harmful ones? Due to its inherent link with ambiguity, humor is an extremely arduous testing ground for the legal regulation of freedom of expression—all the more so in the case of cartoons and other forms of highly condensed, predominantly visual humor. The juridical challenges presented by humorous expression are particularly topical in the digital age, as shown by the mediatic impact of recent humor scandals from Jyllands-Posten to Charlie Hebdo; nevertheless, the potential for interdisciplinary dialogue between law and humor studies is still strikingly underexplored. This paper aims to contribute to the development of forensic humor studies by analyzing a corpus of 10 rulings delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), revolving around controversial examples of predominantly visual humor. After identifying the criteria underpinning the selected judgements and discussing the problems posed by the current ECtHR approach, the present study sets out to illustrate how insights coming from humor studies can prove instrumental in tackling those problems. Building on theoretical models proposed by Wayne Booth and Paul Simpson, it will be argued that a closer dialogue with humor studies can be of particular help to judges dealing with three key questions: does the impugned text clearly signal its humorous or satirical intent? What is the aim or message hiding behind the humorous surface? And to what extent should the author be held accountable for different (and potentially dangerous) interpretations of the same text?

AB - How can judges draw a line between innocent jokes and potentially harmful ones? Due to its inherent link with ambiguity, humor is an extremely arduous testing ground for the legal regulation of freedom of expression—all the more so in the case of cartoons and other forms of highly condensed, predominantly visual humor. The juridical challenges presented by humorous expression are particularly topical in the digital age, as shown by the mediatic impact of recent humor scandals from Jyllands-Posten to Charlie Hebdo; nevertheless, the potential for interdisciplinary dialogue between law and humor studies is still strikingly underexplored. This paper aims to contribute to the development of forensic humor studies by analyzing a corpus of 10 rulings delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), revolving around controversial examples of predominantly visual humor. After identifying the criteria underpinning the selected judgements and discussing the problems posed by the current ECtHR approach, the present study sets out to illustrate how insights coming from humor studies can prove instrumental in tackling those problems. Building on theoretical models proposed by Wayne Booth and Paul Simpson, it will be argued that a closer dialogue with humor studies can be of particular help to judges dealing with three key questions: does the impugned text clearly signal its humorous or satirical intent? What is the aim or message hiding behind the humorous surface? And to what extent should the author be held accountable for different (and potentially dangerous) interpretations of the same text?

KW - Humor

KW - Freedom of Expression

KW - hate speech

KW - European Court of Human Rights

KW - Law and Humanities

KW - HATE SPEECH

KW - CONVENTION

U2 - 10.16995/olh.571

DO - 10.16995/olh.571

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 1

EP - 35

JO - Open Library of Humanities

JF - Open Library of Humanities

SN - 2056-6700

IS - 1

M1 - 22

ER -

ID: 127422698