Comedians contest court decision that censored Léo Lins show

Hours after a comedy special by comedian Léo Lins was overthrown by court order, some of the main comedians in the country, from different political alignments, publicly positioned themselves against censorship and pointed out the serious risks of the decision to humorous activity and freedom of expression.

Léo Lins was forced to delete from YouTube, this Tuesday afternoon (16), a comedy special that had been published at the end of 2022 and had 3.3 million hits. In the decision, judge Gina Fonseca Correa also ordered the comedian to delete all videos, images and texts that contain “derogatory or humiliating content” in relation to “any category considered as a minority or vulnerable” under penalty of R$ 10 thousand per day for noncompliance.

The magistrate also imposed prior censorship by prohibiting the comedian from making any kind of joke against groups considered to be minority or vulnerable in his shows, with the same amount of fine for non-compliance with each event that occurred.

See below some manifestations of comedians against the measure:

“This is the most absurd thing I’ve seen in comedy since the CQC [programa de televisão que fazia cobertura crítico e humorística da política em Brasília] was barred from entering Congress and banning jokes with politicians.
Oscar Filho – Comedian and former member of CQC

“Who went there to watch Léo Lins [no show censurado] loved it. They laughed a lot. Those who didn’t like the jokes are the ones who didn’t. OK, that’s how it has to be. Oh, but it makes fun of minorities… And what’s the legal problem? None. Within the law, you can make fun of everything everything everything. Not liking a joke does not give you the right to stop it from existing. Even more previously. Preventing the comedian from thinking a joke is madness. There is no censorship of good”.
Fabio Porchat – Humorist, TV presenter and one of the creators of the Porta dos Fundos channel

“Nonsense! It is not up to Justice – or anyone else – to approve or censor other people’s jokes. You can like, hate, or criticize the comedy or the comedian, but jokes are just jokes. Jokes do not kill more than dramas, journalism, publicity or reality”.
Antonio Tabet – Comedian and one of the creators of the Porta dos Fundos channel

“It’s 2023 and once again the powerful win. But never before in the history of Brazil has the population been so on the side of the powerful. Because they make a whole artifice for you to endorse authoritarian attitudes thinking that you are doing good for the notion”.
Mauricio Meireles – Comedian and former member of CQC

“What they did to Léo Lins was absurd. Taking down the work of the guy who brings joy to thousands of people, including minorities, is authoritarian to say the least. Art is subjective. This is censorship. Some comedians are experts at these jokes. [de humor negro/ácido]. It does not mean that they are Nazis, racists, homophobes … they just address these issues, even making people think”.
Fabio Rabin – comedian

“We are living in difficult and dangerous times for comedy. In this case of Léo Lins, there are very superficial justifications for excluding a show that he dedicated time, money and energy to. They are signs of dictators’ decisions”.
Bruno Lambert – Humorist recently denounced by federal deputy Tabata Amaral (PSB-SP) for making a joke involving a woman in a wheelchair

Other stand-up comedians, such as Thiago Ventura, Rogério Morgado, Murilo Couto, Diego Serafim, Marcus Cirilo and Diogo Portugal also spoke out against the censorship of Léo Lins.

Decision configures censorship and makes humorous activity unfeasible, says expert

In the opinion of André Marsiglia, a constitutionalist lawyer specializing in freedom of expression and the press and a member of the OAB-SP’s Press Freedom Commission, the court decision is entirely censorious. The jurist says that preventing the comedian from manifesting himself in the future, in the next shows, constitutes prior censorship, which is prohibited by the Federal Supreme Court (STF) through ADPF 130.

“Any minimum restriction on the exercise of freedom of expression needs to be temporary, justifiable and specific. However, the prohibitions of the decision are generic and abstract. If complied with to the letter, they make the professional activity of the comedian unfeasible. That is, in addition to censoring their expression, it also censors the freedom to carry out their economic activity”, explains Marsiglia. “There is no constitutional support for the decision as issued. It is serious for everyone who expresses themselves if it is not reversed immediately and forcefully by the Court”, he reinforces.

Understand the decision against Léo Lins

The judge’s decision complied with the request of the São Paulo Public Prosecutor’s Office, which claimed that the comedian was “reproducing speeches and positions that are now repudiated”, by mentioning in his jokes themes such as slavery, religious persecution, minorities and elderly and disabled people. .

In the request submitted to Justice, Public Prosecutor Richard Gantus Encinas even mentioned the urgency of broad censorship of the comedian. For the prosecutor, it would be “essential to adopt effective measures to put an end to these criminal actions” so that Léo Lins, according to the prosecutor, “stops producing and distributing this type of content on virtual platforms and social networks”, says part of the piece sent to the court.

In the request, Gantus also mentioned the so-called “anti-joke law”, sanctioned by President Lula (PT) in January which, among other measures, defines the telling of jokes about groups that may be considered a minority as a crime of racism. The new rules provide that the maximum penalty for jokes with these groups will be higher than for crimes such as theft and kidnapping.

In addition to the censorship imposed on the comedian, in the judicial decision the magistrate also prohibited Léo Lins from leaving the city of São Paulo for more than ten days without judicial authorization and ordered that the comedian appear monthly in court to inform and justify his activities.

To the report, the comedian’s defense stated that the measure constitutes prior censorship and that he will appeal the decision.