On 13 January, the European Court of Human Rights clarified once again that satire in a political context deserves a great degree of protection. It is precisely in the political debate that satire - even where it provokes, confronts or grates in other ways. The ECHR emphasised that the right to freedom of expression exists in order to guard these sharp edges.
In 2011, the Slovenian magazine Mladina published two photos in its satirical section: one of a prominent Slovenian politician, Branko Grims, with his wife and three children, alongside a similar photo of Joseph Goebbels and his family. This photo was part of an editorial article in which the political methods of Grims were compared to those of Goebbels. A legal battle of many years ensued, up to the Slovenian Constitutional Court.
The Slovenian court held that Mladina had damaged Grims’ honour and good name; the magazine was ordered to pay EUR 3,000 in compensation, publish the judgment in the magazine, and make a public apology. The magazine did not leave it at that and took the case to the ECHR.
The ECHR HRM made short shrift of the Slovenian judgment. According to the ECHR, the national courts had concentrated too much on the photos and had lost sight of the broader context of the publication:
“[…] the Court finds that domestic courts did not sufficiently take into account the broader context in which the impugned publication was made, including the prior lively debate about B.G. and his political methods on social media, its limited effect on the audience of Mladina and its publication in the highly satirical section of the magazine.” (paragraph 76)
The ECHR found that other elements from the article, such as the title and the caption to the photo, also clearly showed that it was a satirical report. It was emphasized that he average reader will understand that the report was intended to stir the imagination:
“Indeed, the average reader, when engaging with a satirical publication, will not interpret it literally but will instead take into account its nature as satire, which has humorous elements and naturally aims to provoke and agitate.” (paragraph 72)
The ECHR held that the comparison with the German Nazi regime, no matter how provoking, served to criticise Grims’ political methods, including using his family to gain political popularity. In the opinion of the ECHR, the national courts could not sufficiently establish any pressing social need for placing the protection of Grims’ reputation above the magazine’s freedom of expression in this matter of public interest.
The freedom of expression of Mladina had wrongly been curtailed by the Slovenian courts. The ECHR ordered Slovenia to pay well over EUR 15,000 in compensation of the damages paid earlier to Grims and the expenses incurred by Mladina.
Would you like to learn more about the boundaries of satire? In a recent episode of our podcast Mediazaken (in Dutch), Jens van den Brink and Janneke Slöetjes discuss the satirical column of LuckyTV, in which TV host Ron Boszhard was depicted as war criminal Ratko Mladić. You can read more about this case on Mediareport.
