Mode of expression: Press cartoon
Publication: Charlie Hebdo
Region: Europe (France)
Relevant dates: 7 October 2015 (publication), 19 February 2019 (final decision)
Outcome: Acquittal
Judicial body: Court of Cassation
Type of law: Criminal Law
Themes: Ableism / Hate Speech / Satire
Context and legal case
In October 2015, Charlie Hebdo published a cartoon by Riss, depicting the rightwing politician Nadine Morano as the “hidden Down syndrome daughter” of General De Gaulle. The cartoon arguably relied on a stereotypical and grotesque representation of children with Down syndrome, and alluded to Anne de Gaulle (1928 – 1948), the General’s much-loved youngest daughter, who was born with Down syndrome. Shortly before the publication of the cartoon, Morano had appeared on the TV show On n’est pas couché, saying that “France is a Judeo-Christian country, of white race” – a statement she presented as a quotation from De Gaulle, although its veracity is contested. As a result of the ensuing outrage, Morano was removed as head of the Républicains party (former UMP) list for the regional elections.
The association Collective Against Handiphobia filed criminal charges against Charlie Hebdo on grounds of “public insult [injure publique] towards a person or a group of people because of their gender, their sexual orientation or their disability and provoking hatred or violence against a person or a group of people because of their gender, sexual orientation or disability.” However, both the lower courts and the Court of Cassation acquitted the magazine. In particular, the Court of Cassation concluded that, “while it is regrettable that the incriminated drawing could have shocked and bruised people with Down syndrome through a grotesque caricature whose good or bad taste does not belong for a court to judge, this drawing and its title do not target people with this disability, but – taking into account the circumstances in which the caricature was published – only target [Morano]; and the impugned publication does not contain any precise incitement to adopt a behavior of rejection with regard to people with Down syndrome on account of their handicap.”
Analysis
The contested cartoon is a typical example of dark humor – namely, a form of humor based on the incongruous association between two or more ideas or scenarios, at least one of which is normally associated with feelings of sadness, compassion, grief or horror (and is therefore deemed incompatible with humor). It is possible to distinguish three basic types of dark humor: disparaging (aiming to insult or dehumanize a vulnerable target, who is the victim or sufferer in the dark scenario evoked by the joke), sarcastic (such as using racist, ableist or sexist tropes in the second degree, as a way to denounce someone else’s bigotry) and taboo-breaking (aiming to question or disrupt the perceived taboo status of a given topic, as is often the case with disaster jokes) (Godioli 2024). However, the difference between these types tends to depend heavily on context, and often lies in the eye of the beholder.
One way to look at context, when considering this disputed cartoon, is to consider Charlie Hebdo’s habitual brand of dark humor, which tends to lean towards the sarcastic mode. For example, when commenting on issues related to racism or migration, Charlie’s cartoons tend to sarcastically echo racist or xenophobic prejudices, as a way to criticize their rampant circulation within French society and the West in general (see also our entry on the Taubira cartoon). To be sure, this is a risky strategy, especially when the cartoon circulates beyond the magazine’s core readership – after all, evoking a stereotype (even with a sarcastic intent) might end up reinforcing the stereotype itself. As a result, some of Charlie’s cartoons on migration have been accused of being outright xenophobic, with their thin veil of irony being lost on several readers. One could point, for example, to the controversies following the publication of two cartoons on the death of three-year old Syrian refugee Alan Kurdi (Freedland 2016).
With Morano, one could argue that it is indeed a case of sarcastic dark humor. In this interpretation, comparing Morano to a child with Down syndrome – with an implicit pejorative connotation – might be a way to echo Morano’s own bigotry, and turn it around against herself. From this perspective, the cartoon would not be ableist in the first degree; rather, likening the politician to a child with Down syndrome would only be seen as an insult by those who hold such discriminatory views (like, allegedly, the politician herself). Not by chance, when interviewed on this case, Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Coco pointed out that the cartoon should not be read in the “first degree” (Lambert 2015). While this interpretation is plausible in light of the magazine’s usual style, it was never really considered in court. And indeed, the connection between the cartoon’s potential ableism and Morano’s racist statements might be too subtle for the sarcasm to land.
In the proceedings, both the magazine’s lawyers and the French courts adopted a different interpretation, one in which the cartoon might indeed have a disparaging component, but only as a tolerable side effect. As reported in the final decision, “the accused rightly points out that […] the contested drawing targets [Morano] to caricature her, and that it is only indirectly [par ricochet] that this drawing would harm disabled people; that in fact, people with Down syndrome are not targeted by this drawing and its title, which only target [Morano].” Although there is little doubt that Morano is the intended target of the cartoon, the court’s reasoning seems to play down a crucial aspect of disparaging jokes, which is abundantly demonstrated by humor research (Ford 2015): even when used instrumentally to mock a third party, the pejorative repetition of an ableist (or racist, sexist, or other discriminatory) trope inevitably contributes to normalizing the same prejudice. In this respect, for the benefit of future comparable cases, the relevant courts could have devoted more attention to the potential societal harm brought about by “indirect” (ricochet) disparagement.
Nonetheless, from a purely juridical perspective, the final outcome of the proceedings is in line with international free speech standards. Even when subjected to a less generous interpretation, the Morano cartoon seems to fall below the threshold established by the United Nations’ Rabat Plan of Action, whereby potentially derogatory expressions can only been restricted when they actively incite others to engage in hatred, violence or discrimination against a vulnerable target based on their “race, religion, gender and other protected characteristics.” Considering the cartoon in its context, with Morano as its clear target, the judges convincingly point out that “the impugned publication does not contain any precise incitement to adopt a behavior of rejection with regard to people with Down syndrome.” Certainly, this does not mean that hate speech is only problematic when it directly and unequivocally incites others to hate on its target; however, as argued by several legal scholars, derogatory speech that falls short of incitement might be addressed more effectively by means other than legal restriction, such as counterspeech or awareness raising (Godioli et al. 2025; Bartolo & Matamoros-Fernández 2023 — see also our ‘Public Order and Incitemet’ section).
Sources and further reading:
Bartolo, Louisa & Matamoros-Fernández, Ariadna. 2023. Online Harm. ISP-Platform Governance Terminologies Essay Series, 27 June. URL: https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/center/isp/documents/onlineharm_ispessayseries_2023.pdf
Ford, Thomas (ed.). 2015. The social consequences of disparagement humor. Special issue, HUMOR 28(2). URL: https://www.degruyter.com/journal/key/humr/28/2/html
Freedland, Jonathan. 2016. Charlie Hebdo’s refugee cartoon isn’t satirical. It’s inflammatory. The Guardian, 15 January. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/15/satire-charlie-hebdo-cartoon-problem
Godioli, Alberto. 2024. Joking Against Humanity? Dark Humor and (De)familiarization. In Bayraktar, N. and Godioli, A. (eds), E(n)stranged: Rethinking Defamiliarization in Literature and Visual Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, 127-148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60859-9_6
Godioli, A., Jacques, S., Young, J., & Matamoros Fernandez, A. (2025). What’s in a Joke? Assessing Humor in Free Speech Jurisprudence. Forum for Humor and the Law / Columbia Global Freedom of Expression. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15383543
Lambert, Elise. 2015. Charlie Hebdo : “On se moque de Nadine Morano, pas des handicapés”, explique la dessinatrice Coco. franceinfo, 8 October. URL: https://www.francetvinfo.fr/economie/medias/charlie-hebdo/charlie-hebdo-on-se-moque-de-nadine-morano-pas-des-handicapes-explique-la-dessinatrice-coco_1118621.html