This article conducts an interdisciplinary analysis of a corpus consisting of ten cases from the European Court of Human Rights. The present contribution will take a first step towards filling this gap by examining a corpus of 10 cases from a cross-disciplinary standpoint, aiming to show how humanities research can provide courts with useful conceptual tools for the interpretation of (potentially) disparaging humor. 1 While a small number of studies have already addressed the treatment of humor and satire in ECtHR cases revolving around free speech and its limits, no specific attention has been paid so far to the complex relations between humor and hate speech. As shown by recent scholarship, an interdisciplinary perspective on humor-related jurisprudence can prove extremely helpful in this respect, by combining case-law analysis with insights from linguistics, semiotics and literary theory. Developing a systematic analytical framework is a necessary first step towards achieving greater consistency on a judicial level, irrespective of broader juridical debates on the effectiveness and desirable reach of hate speech restrictions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |