The harmful side of humour

Humour studies have paid some attention to the risky nature of the professional activity of satirists in non-democratic societies, where legal censorship and political persecution are prevalent. Moreover, a growing number of studies has recently focused on the legal adjudication of satire in democratic societies, where freedom of expression through satirical humour can sometimes conflict with other equally important rights. Since it is not easy to unequivocally assess the effects of a humorous practice, the comedian’s own ethics of responsibility plays an important role in determining the appropriateness of satire, non in abstract but through specific situations. The case of the Spanish satirist Anónimo García exemplifies the ethics of responsibility that can be demanded of comedians. The objective of this paper will be to analyse the tension that this case has provoked, on the one hand, in the sphere of the Spanish judicial system and, on the other, in the sphere of the public debate in Spain. These are two intersecting spheres based on different principles. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they oppose each other, sometimes they run parallel. This case exemplifies the problems involved in the relationship between freedom of expression and certain forms of humour, when they conflict with the democratic values that aspire to create a society oriented toward minimising harm.