Description
When assessing liability for the effects of a disputed joke, courts usually set out to reconstruct how said joke could be received by a “reasonable” audience. However, “deciding who the ‘right-thinking’ or ‘reasonable’” members of society might be is often “far from obvious” (McDonald 2016: 187); and in particular, the elusive nature and subcultural specificity of online humor makes it all the more difficult to identify who exactly is the reasonable recipient of a given expression.Our talk will discuss how the reasonable public is construed in legal cases concerning online humor in relation to: 1) Hate speech (from Féret v. Belgium, European Court of Human Rights, to Ward v. Quebec, Canada Supreme Court); 2) Defamation (McAlpine v Bercow, England and Wales High Court); 3) Public unrest (from Sinkova v. Ukraine, ECtHR, to Chambers v DPP, EWHC); 5) Incitement to violence (HKSAR v. Chan Johnny Sek Ming, Hong Kong).
Spanning across widely different judicial systems, we will illustrate the recurring challenges faced by courts, as well as highlighting the importance of a more systematic approach to the convention of online humor genres. Insights from recent studies on the production and circulation of humor in the digital age might be particularly helpful in this respect.
| Period | 21-Apr-2024 |
|---|---|
| Event title | LOLz and the Law: Online Humor and Free Speech Adjudication: ISHS Double Panel |
| Event type | Conference |
| Degree of Recognition | International |