Scholarlink

<p>In <i>Petrov</i> and earlier cases, the Court prioritised the right to satire weaponising negative stereotypes despite harm done to highly vulnerable communities. Recognising that harm, it deemed it an insufficient reason to curtail highly visible public interest satire. In <i>Petrov</i>, the Court refused to hear the case on its merits based on how unimportant it considered the target’s ‘understandable’ offence. In earlier cases, it penalised the authorities for listening to the affected communities’ dissent and disallowing hurtful caricatures and curbing digital VAWP. Conversely, contemporary standards require engagement with communities’ lived experience and victim-centric, victim-defined responses to discrimination. The ECHR right to humour should not cancel victims’ say on their own dignity.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Petrov v. Russia: when satirical counter-narratives to discrimination (re)victimise vulnerable stigmatisation targets, does the European Court of Human Rights law meet lived experience?

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月28日

查看全文
  • Margarita S. Ilieva

摘要

In Petrov and earlier cases, the Court prioritised the right to satire weaponising negative stereotypes despite harm done to highly vulnerable communities. Recognising that harm, it deemed it an insufficient reason to curtail highly visible public interest satire. In Petrov, the Court refused to hear the case on its merits based on how unimportant it considered the target’s ‘understandable’ offence. In earlier cases, it penalised the authorities for listening to the affected communities’ dissent and disallowing hurtful caricatures and curbing digital VAWP. Conversely, contemporary standards require engagement with communities’ lived experience and victim-centric, victim-defined responses to discrimination. The ECHR right to humour should not cancel victims’ say on their own dignity.