Alberto Godioli (University of Groningen)
This week we inaugurate the ForHum Bulletin format – a three-monthly, curated selection of recent humor-related cases from our Humor News! section. The Bulletin features a brief discussion of the selected rulings, including (when applicable) parallels and references to previous entries from our case-law database. Our first edition covers a wide range of cases, from Slovenian political satire to workplace jokes in South Korea and Lebanese stand-up comedy.
1. Comedy and Satire at the ECtHR
On January 13th, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued two judgments that are somehow related to humorous expression. The first one, SIC – Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A v. Portugal no. 2 (no. 2746/21), focuses on a dispute between a Portuguese TV company (SIC) and two private individuals (M.G. and M.C.). During a stand-up comedy show that took place in January 2012, M.G. and M.C. engaged in a heated exchange with the comedian after offensive remarks. The above-mentioned show was then included as part of a six‑episode documentary series named The Humourist, about the career of the comedian J.C., which was broadcast on SIC Radical. Both the promotional material and the series itself featured extracts of the altercation without the individuals’ explicit consent. The individuals sued for damages, arguing their images and voices were used in a way that harmed their reputation and privacy. The Portuguese Supreme Court ordered SIC to pay € 40,000 in damages and remove the content, finding that tacit consent did not cover such use.
SIC appealed to the ECtHR, claiming a violation of its freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR). The ECtHR upheld the Portuguese decision, ruling that the interference was justified to protect the individuals’ privacy and reputation, and that the sanction was proportionate. The Court emphasized the lack of public interest, the private status of the individuals, and the potentially damaging effects of the broadcast. As stressed in the judgment, “it is not the comedian’s right to freedom of artistic or satirical expression […] that is at issue, but rather the applicant company’s right to both advertise and broadcast one of its shows in order to increase its audience figures, using recordings of the voices and images of two private individuals attending a live stand-up comedy show” (at 44). At least when it comes to the basic ingredients of the case – comedic setting, TV broadcasting and the privacy of individuals featured against their will –, this judgment can be partly compared to Canal 8 v. France (no. 58951/18 and 1308/19, 9 February 2023). In this previous case, the disputed TV show featured a series of revealing telephone pranks where the same host speaks to men who were unwittingly replying to a fake, sexually suggestive ad that he had placed under a false name on a dating website. In that case too, the ECtHR found no Article 10 violation in the sanctions imposed on the broadcaster.
The second judgment dated January 13th is Mladina d.d. Ljubljana v. Slovenia no.2 (no. 43388/17, 13 January 2026). The Slovenian magazine Mladina had published a satirical article comparing a Slovenian politician (B.G.) and his family to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels and his family. The article, part of a public debate about political methods, featured side-by-side family photos in the magazine’s satirical section. B.G. sued for defamation, arguing the comparison harmed his reputation. Slovenian courts found the text acceptable but ruled the photo comparison excessive, ordering Mladina to apologize and pay damages. The ECtHR, however, found that Slovenian courts failed to adequately consider the broader context – including the ongoing public debate, the satirical nature of the section, and the limited impact of the magazine’s audience. The Court ruled that the interference with Mladina’s freedom of expression was not “necessary in a democratic society,” emphasizing that satire and political criticism, even if provocative, deserve strong protection. The ECtHR awarded Mladina compensation for pecuniary damage and legal costs.
As pointed out by Natalie Alkiviadou in her discussion of the case for The Bedrock Principle, Mladina stands in stark contrast with the previous ECtHR judgment Nix v. Germany (2018). The latter focused on content published by the applicant on his personal blog, in which he criticized the treatment of his German-Nepalese daughter by a State employment office, in the context of a broader public debate on discrimination against children from migrant backgrounds and families on social welfare. One of the applicant’s posts contained a picture of the former SS chief Heinrich Himmler with the badge of the Nazi party (including a swastika) on his front pocket and a swastika armband. Next to the picture, Mr. Nix posted a quote from Himmler concerning the schooling of children in Eastern Europe during the occupation of Nazi Germany. Under the picture and quotation, Mr. Nix named one of the employees of the employment office. The applicant was convicted under German criminal law for using symbols of unconstitutional organizations, and the ECtHR declared his Article 10 complaint inadmissible. In its speech-protective approach to the use of Nazi imagery within a sarcastic, satirical context, Mladina marks a welcome departure from the Court’s stance in Nix.
2. Humor by/about politicians
Beside Mladina v. Slovenia, January was a particularly busy month at the intersection of humor, politics and free speech adjudication. In Belgium, the Court of Cassation (Hof van Cassatie) definitively ended the long legal case concerning the far-right movement Schild en Vrienden, by rejecting all appeals lodged by former MP Dries Van Langenhove and four others against their convictions. This means their sentences are now final and cannot be challenged further in Belgium. The six convicted Schild & Vrienden members had frequently shared racist, sexist and negationist memes in closed chat groups on Facebook and Discord. In March 2024, as discussed by Babette De Naeyer in her ForHum post, the first instance court imposed heavy sanctions for all six members – including a one-year prison sentence, a €16,000 fine, and a ten-year ban on exercising political rights for the group’s leader Dries Van Langenhove. In June 2025, while acknowledging the serious nature of the offenses, the Ghent Court of Appeal had chosen to reduce the fines and eliminate or suspend the prison terms. These revised convictions have now been solidified by the highest court in Belgium, thus bringing the years-long legal saga to a close.
In France, a Paris court ruled against ten individuals convicted of cyber-bullying and defamation against Brigitte Macron, wife of French president Emmanuel Macron. The defendants were found guilty of spreading false claims about Brigitte Macron’s gender, sexuality, and personal life, including malicious remarks about her age gap with the president. Most received suspended prison sentences of up to eight months, while one was jailed immediately for failing to appear in court. The judge emphasized the defendants’ intent to harm, noting the severe impact on Macron’s public and private life. However, two defendants – Natacha Rey and Amandine Roy – were initially convicted for claiming Macron was a man who had changed gender, but their convictions were overturned on appeal. The appeals court ruled that such claims did not necessarily constitute an “attack on honor.” Dissatisfied with this outcome, the Macrons are now appealing the acquittals to France’s highest court, seeking to reinstate the original convictions. As reported back in October 2025 by The Guardian, one of the defendants had told the court that he had a relatively small Twitter account, adding: “It was just a joke … I wanted to be sarcastic, nothing more.” Similarly, another defendant argued that “it was just humour.” Should the case ever find its way to Strasbourg, it would be interesting to see how the ECtHR sets out to draw a line between defamatory claims and satirical exaggeration, vis-à-vis its well-established principle that public figures (and political figures in particular) should display a high degree of tolerance towards criticism and ridicule (see, for instance, Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria).
On the subject of jokes targeting presidents, it would be remiss not to mention Donald Trump’s latest attack against a comedian poking fun at him. During the 2026 Grammy Awards ceremony, host Trevor Noah quipped that Trump wanted Greenland as a replacement for Jeffrey Epstein’s island, implying that Trump and Bill Clinton had spent time there. Specifically, after Billie Eilish won Song of the Year, Noah said: “That is a Grammy that every artist wants almost as much as Trump wants Greenland, which makes sense… because Epstein’s island is gone, he needs a new one to hang out with Bill Clinton.” Trump responded angrily on Truth Social, calling the Grammys “virtually unwatchable” and Noah “a total loser.” He denied ever visiting Epstein’s island and threatened to sue Noah for defamation. As stressed by ForHum co-director Laura Little in an interview with Straight Arrow News, due to Trump’s status as a public official, the burden of proof in a hypothetical defamation case would be particularly high. “Not only would he have to show that what was said could be taken as true, he’d also have the New York Times heightened standard of proof that he would have to overcome” (in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the US Supreme Court famously ruled that public officials must prove statements were made with actual malice to win a defamation suit).
And finally, in Colombia, the cartoonist and Senate candidate Julio César Martínez, also known as Matador, got in double legal trouble for body-shaming female Senator and presidential candidate Paloma Valencia. In January, after Valencia published a campaign video of herself enjoying a breakfast buffet of traditional dishes, Matador republished the video on Twitter along with a photomontage captioned with a play on words in Spanish mocking Valencia’s weight (“Paloma Valencia no se ‘dirige’ al país, se ‘digiere’ al país”: “Paloma Valencia does not ‘address’ the country, she ‘digests’ the country). Days later, he published a cartoon titled Parliamentary Diet once again mocking her weight and commenting on how Valencia is able to have a good breakfast while she voted against subsidies in favour of the elderly. The posts sparked immediate national outrage. Valencia’s Party announced that it would start a complaint before the Colombian electoral authority for political gender violence and a female political candidate from Valencia’s party filed a criminal complaint against him for the same reasons. Matador responded to the outrage saying that he will not back down. Just like the Macron lawsuit discussed above, the Matador controversy is only a recent example in a much longer history of legal disputes concerning the intersection of political satire and sexism — see, among others, Telo de Abreu v. Portugal (ECtHR, No. 42713/15, 2022) and Pando de Mercado v. Gente Grossa SRL (Supreme Court of Argentina, 63667/2012/CS1, 2020).
3. Dark humor gone wrong: From Charlie Hebdo to high school
Moving from politics to other current affairs, the New Year started on a tragic note with the catastrophic bar fire in the ski-resort town of Crans-Montana (Switzerland), in which 41 people died and 116 others were injured. A few days after the accident, French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo published a cartoon depicting two bandaged, charred skiers with the caption “Les brûlés font du ski” (“The burned go skiing”), a dark pun on a classic French comedy film. The cartoon sparked outrage, leading a Swiss couple to file a criminal complaint against the magazine and cartoonist Éric Salch for violating human dignity under Swiss law.
The case is reminiscent of the 2016 lawsuit concerning Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon on the devastating earthquake in Amatrice, Italy, which killed nearly 300 people. The cartoon depicted earthquake victims as pasta dishes. The town of Amatrice and Italian authorities condemned the cartoon as disrespectful and offensive, and a local prosecutor sued Charlie Hebdo for “aggravated defamation” under Art. 595 of the Italian Criminal Code. However, the case was eventually dismissed by an Italian court, which ruled that the cartoon, while in poor taste, did not constitute a criminal offense under Italian law.
Another recent case from the US further highlights the perils of dark humor. In December 2025, a high school sophomore from Smith County, Tennessee sued his school district, the director of schools, and his principal after being suspended for a year over an Instagram comment. The student had reposted a friend’s Instagram post before a rivalry football game with the caption “Love ya bro, but ur time to die,” followed by heart emojis in his school’s colors. The school interpreted this as a threat and suspended him under Tennessee’s strict 2024 law, which makes threats against schools a Class E felony. The student’s lawsuit argued that the suspension violates his First Amendment rights, as the comment was made outside school hours and did not disrupt school activities. The case is set for trial in early 2026, and highlights ongoing debates over student free speech and the overreach of school discipline policies in Tennessee. Just a few weeks ago, most notably, a jury ruled in favor of another high school student who had been suspended by Tullahoma City Schools over a series of Instagram memes lampooning his principal.
Centered as it is on the difference between a humorous social media post and a threat, the Smith County lawsuit has a few precedents in the ForHum database – see in particular Thilakawardhana v. OIA (England & Wales Court of Appeal, 2018). The appellant was a student at the university of Leicester, where he had completed three years leading to a degree in medicine and had commenced a Bsc degree. A fellow student was mistakenly sent some explicit photographs of the appellant’s friend, and distributed them without permission. This led the appellant to post that famous Liam Neeson meme on the fellow student’s Facebook page, containing the words “I will look for you, I will find you. And I will kill you”. The meme was accompanied by a private message reading “I don’t want to see you on a night out in Leicester, or in the UK.” A Fitness to Practise Appeal Panel took the career-ending decision to terminate the Appellant’s medical studies, and the decision was eventually upheld by the Court of Appeal – although, arguably, more attention could have been placed on the fact that the disputed content was a well-known meme, which is typically used to express one’s anger or frustration in a hyperbolic, jocular manner.
4. Workplace banter or misconduct?
Graduating from classroom to workplace, our selection includes two rulings focusing on the grey areas between (alleged) banter and misconduct. In December 2025, South Korea’s Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s decision on a case concerning two National Museum employees. In 2020, a subordinate employee (B) claimed he had been instructed by their superior (A) to secretly place a bottle of premium liquor in a locker, allegedly as payment for training. When the promised training did not occur, B reported the incident to colleagues, framing it as a violation of workplace integrity. Both employees faced disciplinary action, and A later sued B for defamation, arguing that the liquor was a voluntary gift and that his request was merely a joke. A claimed that B’s disclosure caused him reputational harm and workplace disadvantages. Lower courts initially ruled in A’s favor, ordering B to pay compensation, but the Supreme Court overturned this decision in December 2025. The Court found that B’s disclosure was a matter of public interest, as it involved potential abuse of power and gift acceptance by a public official. The ruling emphasized that exposing such issues outweighed claims of defamation, ultimately protecting B’s right to raise concerns about workplace misconduct.
Around the same time, a London employment court had to rule on a similar case, as a former Barclays investment banker had sued the bank for unfair dismissal after losing his job over what he seemingly intended as an offhand joke. The banker was fired in October 2024 for allegedly trying to cover up a potential client fee error. He had told a junior colleague not to disclose the issue, saying it could “open a can of worms,” which Barclays interpreted as an attempt to conceal a serious matter. The banker argued the remark was a joke taken out of context and that the bank used it as a pretext to dismiss him. The employment court, however, ruled against him, finding that his conduct – regardless of the joke’s intent – demonstrated dishonesty and justified dismissal. The judge stated that his attempt to persuade a colleague to withhold information was unacceptable. The banker is now planning to appeal, maintaining his innocence and seeking to clear his name and secure compensation.
The closest precedent from the ForHum database is probably Broad v. Barbara Shanks (Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland, 2017). The claimant was employed as a Trainee Estate Agent by the respondent, before being dismissed for gross misconduct. After a ransomware attack on the company, the IT consultant noticed that the claimant’s computer had no malware protection, and there was installed a gambling software called Betfair. When confronted by the IT consultant, the claimant told him not to worry about it and said “I do it all the time, if you keep quiet I’ll give you half.” A colleague who overheard him thought he was joking, but the consultant had taken him seriously; he therefore informed the employer that the claimant had installed betting websites and had offered him a bribe. Following an investigation, the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct; the tribunal, however, found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed, and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £10,017.35 in compensation. For more legal drama concerning alleged (deadpan) jokes in the workplace, see also two US cases with opposite outcomes – namely National Labor Relations Board v. Champion Laboratories, Inc. (7th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1996) and Smithers Tire & Auto Testing of Tex., Inc. (National Labor Relations Board, 1992).
5. Comedy under threat in Lebanon
Our first bulletin ends with some concerning news from Lebanon, where stand-up comedian Mario Moubarak is facing legal and social backlash after a joke about Jesus’ resurrection was taken out of context and circulated online. During a stand-up performance, Moubarak quipped that “Jesus’ burial probably wasn’t successful, since in the end he got up,” a line meant as part of a broader reflection on faith and doubt. However, a short, edited clip of the joke was reposted on social media without context, framing it as deliberate blasphemy. In December 2025, the Catholic Center for Media filed a lawsuit against Moubarak for “offending religious sentiments,” and conservative Christian groups pressured authorities to act. Upon returning to Lebanon from Canada, Moubarak was detained at Beirut Airport, where his passport and phone were confiscated before he was released on the condition he report for interrogation. The case has sparked debate over freedom of expression and the limits of satire in Lebanon, where – as further discussed in this Financial Times article by Malaika Kanaaneh Tapper – comedians increasingly face legal and sectarian pressure for challenging religious or political norms.
***
Special thanks to Babette De Naeyer (Pompeu Fabra University) for her heads-up on SIC v. Portugal and the final Schild & Vrienden ruling, and to Luisa Fernanda Isaza-Ibarra (University of Groningen) for her summary of the Matador case.
This publication is funded by the Dutch Research Council through the Humour in Court project (VI.Vidi.201.111, NWO Talent Programme Vidi SSH 2020).