Freedom of Expression vs. Protection of Personality Rights — Are there really limits to humor?

Freedom of expression, as a fundamental right, is one of the essential pillars of democratic and pluralistic societies. It’s enshrined in many legal systems and reaffirmed in international conventions, such as the European Convention on Human Rights.
However, in practice, it often comes into conflict with other equally important rights—like honor, reputation, image, and human dignity. This tension becomes especially delicate when it comes to artistic forms such as humor, which by nature is irreverent and tends to challenge social norms, public figures, and even established truths.

This leads us to a long-standing debate: how far can—or should—we go in censoring humor? And at what point does humor stop being an exercise of free speech and become a violation of someone’s personal rights?

A prime example of this tension is the lawsuit filed by singers and brothers Sérgio and Nelson Rosado (‘the Angels’) against comedian Joana Marques. At the centre of the dispute is a social media post by the comedian, author of the programme Extremamente Desagradável (Extremely Unpleasant), known for its satirical tone and biting irony, in which she comments on and parodies public figures and events in the media.

The lawsuit invokes civil protection of personal rights—namely honor, reputation, and image—which are also safeguarded under criminal law through defamation and insult offenses. Still, it’s important to point out that Portuguese case law has consistently held that these crimes require the attribution of offensive facts or damaging value judgments specifically aimed at the person. In contrast, criticism of public performances or opinions on public acts, no matter how harsh, are generally protected under freedom of expression.

In this particular case, there doesn’t seem to be evidence of an attack on the singers’ personal dignity. Rather, it appears to be a critique of their professional performance in the music industry. Satire, even when uncomfortable or sharp, falls within the legitimate bounds of free speech—especially when it targets public figures, who are naturally subject to greater scrutiny.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has consistently affirmed that public figures must tolerate a higher level of criticism, precisely because of their social visibility. This greater exposure comes with both increased responsibility and a greater tolerance for critical—and even humorous—judgment.

Portuguese courts have echoed this approach, generally adopting broader limits when it comes to criticism aimed at public figures, especially in areas like journalism, political commentary, or artistic satire.

Freedom of expression isn’t an absolute right—it must be exercised responsibly, with an awareness of its impact on others. Humor can and should be bold, provocative, and challenging, but it must also respect basic human dignity. The line between sharp critique and gratuitous cruelty is thin—and it’s precisely within that space where some of the most difficult legal and social questions of our time arise.

Humor is—and should remain—a tool for freedom, social critique, and cultural emancipation. But like any form of expression, it doesn’t exist in a legal or ethical vacuum. Its legitimacy depends on context, intent, and above all, the real impact on those involved.

In the case of Os Anjos vs. Joana Marques, the prevailing view seems to be that there was no personal attack on the singers’ dignity—just a strong critique of their public work. Such commentary is protected by freedom of expression, particularly in artistic and humorous contexts, and does not exceed the bounds of social tolerance or constitute a real violation of personality rights.

In short: humor should be free, but not reckless; provocative, but not destructive; satirical, but not offensive. It’s up to the law—and society—to keep this delicate balance alive, where laughter doesn’t become censorship, and dignity isn’t sacrificed for the sake of a joke.