Human disproportionality

The Anjos vs. Joana Marques case has been the subject of many articles and statements and does not appear to be particularly difficult to resolve from a judicial standpoint. I am neither a jurist nor a lawyer, but I am a Portuguese citizen and consider freedom of expression to be one of the most important and precious rights in our society. It would be troubling to live in a country whose judicial system condemned an act like Joana Marques's. The consequences for public discourse and debate, essential to any true democracy and a vital hallmark of a free society, would simply be too serious. Although Portuguese courts often interpret freedom of expression too narrowly, limiting it in the name of the right to good name and honor, I do not expect them to side with the Anjos. And, of course, even if they do, the comedian will certainly be protected by the European Court of Human Rights, which frequently condemns the Portuguese state for these overly restrictive interpretations.

I won't be radical, as many are, and claim that freedom of expression has no limits. Of course it does. This philosophical discussion is a great, serious and in-depth introduction to the subject (written in English). In this article, Jeffrey Howard summarizes the main theories on the value, justifications, and moral limits to freedom of expression, as opposed to "mere" legal limits. I believe that most of those who claim or suggest that freedom of expression has no limits do so for stylistic purposes or political strategy—that is, to try to mobilize our public discourse and our society toward a broader understanding of freedom of expression, a goal I share.

The Anjos vs. Joana Marques case has, naturally, been extensively analyzed from the perspective of the limits of humor and the limits of freedom of expression. Fundamentally, I do not disagree with the conclusions of those who defend a broad conception of these freedoms. After considering the arguments presented by Nelson and Sérgio Rosado, we understand that the two singers complain about the reactions of a small, identifiable number of people to Joana Marques' short video, as well as the general social dynamics that followed its publication. The duo complains of cyberbullying and threats from nationalist groups and of having had multiple concerts, sponsorships, and advertising contracts canceled.

None of these acts were committed by Joana Marques, whose original video received relatively little attention (compared to her usual radio comedy shows). More importantly, Joana Marques had no malicious intent to produce these commercial, violent, or harmful effects, or to intentionally harm the Anjos' career. Furthermore, any of these acts could have resulted in legal action by the Anjos against the perpetrators of the cyberbullying , the threats, or the business owners and organizations that terminated their contracts, whether justified or not. Of course, this wouldn't be as publicized or as widely reported as demanding compensation of over one million euros from the country's most popular comedian.

Naturally, public speech can have serious consequences, and if a causal link with intent is demonstrated, such speech should not be absolved of liability. Imagine, for example, a political leader who encourages his supporters to physically attack other citizens, triggering a concrete collective episode of violence. However, in the vast majority of cases, it is much more difficult to demonstrate such an obvious causal link and intent with sufficiently serious consequences. It is also important to separate material consequences and physical violence from immaterial consequences or violence through words.

This brings us to the issue of reputational damage, as well as the alleged harm to the physical and mental health of those targeted. Naturally, no one likes to be humiliated in public, and few would like to be the target of ridicule or harsh criticism. However, it's part of living in society to receive criticism, to be the target of humor and ridicule, to have not only admirers but also people who dislike us, to experience professional setbacks and less positive moments. For public figures, such as artists or politicians, who voluntarily expose themselves to greater public visibility (and also receive benefits for it), the threshold for accepting criticism should be even higher. It makes no sense for an artist or writer to want to have a successful public career, producing books, songs, exhibitions, concerts, and shows, but refuse to subject themselves to the subjective criticism that is part of that same career. Not all artists are successful, and not all enjoy equal success throughout their lives. Many go through less positive periods after albums, works, or performances that are less successful or less well-received by the public.

The Angels' main problem isn't with Joana Marques, but with the disproportionality of human reactions and mass phenomena (a disproportionality in which they also contribute to the legal process). I confess that, reading about this case, I'm astonished by the people who respond to a short video like the one posted by Joana Marques with hatred completely disproportionate to the crime, sending attacks and violent messages on social media, and even physical threats (!). It also seems disproportionate to me that companies and organizations cancel concerts in response to a video like this, even though it's perfectly within their legal and contractual rights. Did the audience that enjoyed the Angels and their music stop liking them because of those few seconds of a poorly executed, unimportant performance? Above all, it seems disproportionate to me how individuals go from bestial to beastly over small things that don't justify either extreme, how small setbacks are magnified in their gravity, how jokes and satire – which fulfill an important social function, including that of knowing how to laugh at our own mistakes and our personal and social ridiculousness – are interpreted as great definitive and summary assessments of a person's moral worth.

Perhaps this disproportionality is exacerbated by the viral effect of social media algorithms, whose consequences and social dynamics are far more complex to analyze, unravel, and regulate. But this isn't Joana Marques' fault, and it will be far more difficult to resolve.