“Cancellation is the guillotine of the 21st century”

Even collecting a series of cancellations on the internet, death threats, dismissal from work and physical aggression, and responding to dozens of lawsuits related to jokes told on stage, the comedian Léo Lins is one of the few Brazilian comedians who remains in the trench of freedom humorous expression.

With the unprecedented advance of identitarianism around the world, restrictions on comedians have gained more and more strength in Brazil. One of the episodes that doubled the risks to the freedom of expression of comedians was the recent sanction, by President Lula (PT), of the so-called “anti-joke law”. One of the measures that came into force is the classification of joke-telling involving groups considered to be minorities (by aspects such as color, ethnicity, religion or origin) as a crime of racism.

One of the sections of the rule determines that crimes provided for in the Racism Law will now have penalties increased by one third to one half “when they occur in context or with the intention of relaxation, fun or recreation”. The law also determines that if the speech considered criminal occurs in the context of artistic or cultural activities aimed at the public, the author will also be prohibited from frequenting these places for three years, which creates a dangerous environment mainly for comedians of stand up. It is worth mentioning that the new rules that criminalize jokes bring heavier penalties than for crimes such as theft, receiving stolen goods and kidnapping.

In an exclusive interview with People’s GazetteLéo Lins talks about the culture of censorship imposed by “political correctness”, the actions of activists who encourage the criminalization of satire directed at groups considered to be minorities – while tolerating the same jokes when made to other groups –, and the risks of controversial measures recently created by the Lula government, such as the so-called “Ministry of Truth”.

How do measures such as the so-called “anti-joke law”, sanctioned by President Lula, impact the humorous activity?

Leo Lins: As I always say, humor has no limits, the environment does. So we start from the assumption that the humorist on a stage is doing his art.

About this law, what immediately alerted me is that it becomes an aggravating factor when a speech is made for entertainment purposes. There are two motivations legally speaking: the animus injuriandiwhich is a speech intended to offend, and the animus jocandi, in which the objective is playfulness, joke. In this second possibility you don’t want to hurt anyone’s honor – in short, it’s a joke.

It is absurd to make this second motivation an aggravating factor. Imagine if Justice says “Look, you will be sentenced to three years in prison because you made that joke”. If I argue, “No, it wasn’t a joke. In that case, I just wanted to offend you.” “Oh yes? So the penalty will be less”. This doesn’t make any sense. The law makes room for this: the joke becomes more serious than a real offense.

Do you see an ideological character in the format that this law ended up taking?

Leo Lins: Several limitations are being placed that follow a certain agenda, because that’s all in fact: a dispute for power. Each group wants to impose its rules as the dominant ones for society.

Today, artistically speaking, we have a leftist hegemony. For “political correctness” itself, I say that a more appropriate term would be “leftist correct”, because the issues that are considered “incorrect” are those that are not on the agenda of the left. If I want to make a joke satirizing Jesus Christ, that won’t be a problem; I will win special streams famous, I will not have problems. Now, if I make a joke involving “fatphobia”, then I will be criticized and massacred by the left-wing media.

The big idea is to create an apparently neutral – politically correct – term that sells these so-called progressive ideals. So in the end it’s a power struggle.

How many lawsuits related to jokes are you currently responding to?

Leo Lins: I have no idea, I already lost count. All I know is that my lawyer lives in a much nicer house than mine.

Was it more than a dozen?

Leo Lins: Easy easy. Quietly. But all the controversies I’ve ever been involved in are for jokes told on stage. It has nothing outside of a mood mood. “Oh, but you replied to someone on your Instagram profile”. Yes, my profile is comic, it’s a humor profile. There’s nothing done outside of the mood environment. Now, making jokes on the street with people, no. I am against it. I don’t think you should make fun of a person outside of the proper environment for that.

Have you ever been convicted in any of these cases?

Leo Lins: Yes. I’ve lost some, others I’m appealing and I’ve already won some.

What I see happening in court is that it doesn’t matter what happened, what matters is the size of the parties involved and what they represent. Unfortunately. There is no cold analysis of what happened. This leaves a very large margin for injustice.

Reprisals against you already amounted to physical aggression once, right?

Leo Lins: Yes, I got punched in the back of the head by a Geography teacher. Then he was a candidate, if I’m not mistaken, for PSOL. He lost, he was not elected. But the worst part is this: he was a teacher.

It was in the middle of a crowd, he came cowardly from behind. And the one who ended up telling me who the professor was was a student of his, who said he had classes with him, and that the professor was trying to convert the entire class politically. He’s the only person I’ve sued to date, because I’m standing in the street and suddenly I get punched in the back of the head in a room full of witnesses. Absurd.

Leo Lins: Today I see that there are several people who fight for the rights of certain groups, whether LGBTs, teachers, blacks, autistic children, the disabled. Many of these people call themselves defenders of these classes when most of the time, or almost 100% of the time, it is not the class that elected them. They call themselves representatives of a group and need to justify their existence to their supposed army, so they are looking for trouble to say: “I will fight for you”.

In the case of Congresswoman Tabata Amaral, who made the complaint, she took a joke from a comedian who does not live only from comedy, in the case of Bruno Lambert, and will use her army to run over this guy “in the name of morality and good mores”.

As I say, cancellation is the guillotine of the 21st century. And cancellers are the inquisitors. In this specific case, she tries to end a person’s life. The guy doesn’t even live off comedy. “Ah, but it offended me”. Okay, it’s a joke made in a joke environment. “I did not like”. Fine, don’t go to the show.

But then the person wants the social network to put an end to his profile, he wants the workplace not to receive him, he wants to cause collateral damage to his job which, in the case of Bruno Lambert, was the main source of income, so that he can be fired. Is the person going to do what in life when the cancellers end everything?

So I am completely against this “digital torture”. You’re going to end someone’s life. I’m not going to be a hypocrite to say that any and all jokes have to be tolerated. There are jokes that are actually racist or homophobic. There are prejudiced thoughts without a doubt. I think these movements that value minority groups are partly necessary. The problem is when you go into hysteria and start complaining about absurd cases and wanting people to lose everything.

Where is the scenario of freedom in humor going? Do you know of cases of comedians who are having to adapt their shows to avoid being denounced?

Leo Lins: It is, shall we say, moving towards what some want: a “healthier and more positive” mood, which is what happened in the Soviet Union during Stalin’s communist regime. They spoke a lot about it, about having a healthier and more positive mood, which in this case was the mood that exalted the State.

I know of many cases of comedians who say: “They complained about this joke, so I won’t do it anymore”. And I don’t judge, the person doesn’t want to get into a fight about it so they stop telling the joke. But the point is, if everyone starts doing that, the ground for the joke will get smaller and smaller.

Even several comedians are not experiencing problems now because there are others who are on the front line, who are being shot at. But if those guys fall, the chase will pass to whoever is in the second line. When they take those down, go to the third, to the fourth. If several are knocked down, there will come a time when whoever is back there, calm, who never had any problems, will be the target.

“But hey, I’m making a parrot joke”. “That’s right, but Ibama is on top, parrots are trafficked and all”. And that. There will come a point where the reaction to a drunken joke will be, “But my uncle died of cirrhosis.”

Do you have any fears about the new scenario in Brasilia in relation to freedom of expression?

Leo Lins: I’ll keep making jokes. If I refrain from telling a joke because it might offend someone, I don’t tell a joke at all. “Ah, but there’s a joke that may not offend anyone”. Look, there is, but I don’t think it’s going to be that funny.

I think humor has a critical character too. For me, humor has to have the risk of exploding. And anyone who proposes to walk that line is the same as walking a tightrope. Why then… and when to explode? Then you have to deal with it and contain the damage. But I think that’s part of the fun and what attracts the public’s attention. I admire this kind of comedy.

Léo Lins: I think that in the long run it can be dangerous. We have to light a warning sign now so that 2024 doesn’t become our 1984 [referência ao livro “1984”, romance que denuncia as mazelas do totalitarismo e destaca a manipulação e a intensa vigilância estatal como mecanismos de controle social].

I think that regardless of the side, the objective is power and each group ends up wanting to impose its rule, its parameter as being that of society. The question now is whether a so-called progressive agenda will advance further. It is necessary to be attentive, for example, with this “Ministry of Truth”. Will the government judge what is fake and what is not? Who judges is the president’s party, or a judge he put there?

Then there’s a much bigger problem, and breaking that gear is very difficult. I think anyone who has the opportunity to criticize and wants to do so should do so. Freedom of expression is just that. This is a very important asset that we must always try to preserve. Anytime freedom of expression is threatened – and I believe it is – whoever can draw attention to it, I think it’s important to do so.