Hands up, Bozo!

Humour is an elusive topic within the legal sphere. Contemporary discourse frequently struggles with whether comedians should be legally accountable for their often-controversial humour, juxtaposing the intricacies of humour’s nature against the principle of free speech. This article aims to demonstrate the inadequacy of judicial resources in addressing humorous expressions. Initially, I examine the varied judicial treatments of humour across different legal systems. Subsequently, I highlight the inherent difficulties in criminalizing humour, whether through aesthetic judgments or evaluations of the comedian's intentions, as both tend to result in an excessive interpretation of the performer’s expression and motives. In the third section, I critique the models proposed by Godioli and Mosaka, discussing the benefits and limitations of these frameworks in establishing a legal standard for assessing when humour crosses the line and its adjudication in court. Ultimately, I contend that humour, particularly that of comedians, ought to be evaluated from a societal perspective, exempting it from legal constraints. I propose alternative solutions to confront offensive humour that bypass formal justice systems, such as enhancing media literacy, endorsing comedians who champion social values, and deterring the patronage of certain comedic genres.