HUMOROUS EXPRESSION AND CIVIL LIABILITY

THE HUMORIST’S HARMFUL CONDUCT IN THE LIGHT OF THE NORMATIVE GUILT

Abstract

The humor is present since the most remote in human history, but its free expression has entered a collision course with the personality rights, fact that denotes through the growth of civil liability of humourists for alleged injuries to honor, intimacy, privacity of others. In the absence of safe discretion for measuring harmful conduct of the comedians face the personality rights of others, often the Judiciary has sought to resolve disputes based on personal tastes of the contente of humourous message propagated to delimitate, then, the existence of a reimbusable damage, method with which it does not fit. To the same extent, it apperas that the weighting techniche lacks safe and univocal criteria to delimit the predominance of the opposing rights under analysis The methodology used here makes use of bibliographic technique and a deductive approach insofar as it proposes the analysis of humorist’s conduct according to normative guilt, pointing out doctrinal criteria and applicable jurispudence that foster the consctruction of a conduct standard for the humor professional, whose civil liability can only be attributed if there is a deviation from this standard. The analysis of harmful humorist’s conduct in the light of normative guilty should promote greater legal certainty and predictability in the analysis of cases of civil liability of humor professionals.

Keywords: Humor. Freedom speech. Civil liability. Normative guilt. Limit of humor.