Cartoons on trial: A case study integrating discursive, legal and empirical perspectives

Abstract

This paper focuses on two controversial cartoons that elicited debates around the conflicts between freedom of expression and the right to satire on the one hand, and the protection of the reputation or rights of others on the other. Paying special attention to genre-related aspects, we adopt a comprehensive approach that combines a discourse analysis of the cartoons, the analysis of the legal cases that followed their publication, and the assessment by 68 cartoonists from 33 nationalities on the clarity and offensiveness of the selected cartoons. The cartoons were published in Charlie Hebdo (France) and El Universo (Ecuador), respectively. Based on our analyses, we propose that the main triggers of discursive controversy are the target as well as the modal and rhetorical ways of addressing a theme. We also conclude that: (1) The plaintiff's most relevant arguments deny the satirical status of these cartoons; (2) The high disparity in the cartoonists' assessments of Charlie Hebdo's cartoon can be associated with its ambiguity when addressing a sensitive issue; (3) Regardless of their positive or negative assessment, cartoonists have a strong position in defense of the authors' and newspapers' right to publish them; (4) No significant differences were found in the assessment of the cartoons in relation to the geographical origin of the cartoonists who took part in the questionnaire.