Over the summer, the DELIAH team attended several conferences. One of these was From Stage to State: The Role of Art in Shaping Democratic Spaces, which was organised by our sister project Democracy in Action and which took place in Krakow between 9 and 11 June 2026.

DELIAH project coordinator Andrew Bricker not only attended, but gave a presentation and took part part in a roundtable. During the panel From Quantitative to Co-Creative Approaches: Exploring Civic Engagement through Artistic Methods, he introduced the DELIAH project, shared some of the team’s early findings, and discussed with his fellow panelists the affordances of Art-Based Research (ABR) and specifically humour in democratic resiliency.

Later in the conference he joined the roundtable Art and Democracy: Achievements & Challenges, alongside members of Democracy in Action and our other sister project, Larpocracy. At the heart of that conversation was the importance of the humanities and social sciences, how we can use ABR and art more broadly to explore questions of democracy, and the challenges we face as researchers using qualitative methods.

The Dutch Journalism Festival (Nederlands Journalistiek Festival) is taking place on September 18 and 19 in Deventer, the Netherlands. The two-day festival features panels, workshops, movie screenings and live journalism. DELIAH is also present with the workshop The Importance of Humour for Democracy: Good Humour versus Bad Humour.

Unfortunately, the workshop is already fully booked. If you are interested, we did a similar workshop at the International Journalism Festival in Perugia in April, which was recorded:

Also, if you are planning to visit the festival, several Dutch cartoonists will be drawing live on Saturday to see who can make the best cartoon.

Full festival program (in Dutch)

Satire controversies are no longer an occasional disturbance in the public sphere. They have become a recurring mode through which contemporary societies negotiate disagreement about humour, harm, and freedom of expression – and, increasingly, about truth and political legitimacy (Koivukoski et al, 2026). From the Alan Kurdi controversy to White House memes, the field of satirical conflict has grown both more visible and more difficult to map within established theoretical frameworks. This conference invites contributions that engage with the complexity of contemporary satire and of these controversies.

Relevant questions might include, but are not limited to, the following: Why have satire controversies become a recurring feature of public life rather than exceptional events? What can earlier controversies reveal about those of the present, and where do the continuities end? When satirical work tips into conflict, is the dispute really about the work itself? Which inherited concepts (of intention, offence, authorship etc.) strain under contemporary conditions, and what might take their place? When is “satire” a description of a work, and when is it a claim made strategically about it? And with what consequences do these conflicts end - for careers, legislation, and the limits of the sayable?

We welcome proposals across the following tracks:

1. Contemporary satire controversies. How does interpretive divergence shape the trajectory of controversy? Through which dynamics do controversies emerge, escalate, and dissipate - and why does even sharply polemical satire sometimes provoke no controversy at all?

2. The polemical force of contemporary satire. How do specific works of satire attack, expose or delegitimise their targets? When does a work’s critical edge advance a debate, and when does it merely harden existing positions?

3. Satire in the age of generative AI. How do generative tools (deepfakes, voice cloning etc.) transform satire’s capacity to wound or the way satire controversies unfold? What happens when photorealism erases caricature’s signal of its own artifice?

4. Satire produced by states, governments, party-political actors, and other institutions of power. What happens to the satirical contract when the satirist is also the sovereign? How is regime-sponsored mockery received and to what extent is it controversial?

5. Cases where the satirical label is invoked or feigned – from fabricated satirical works in disinformation campaigns to the ‘just a joke’ defense. How do actors exploit satire’s cultural legitimacy for ends foreign to it? And what distinguishes such appropriation from satire’s own strategies?

Within each of these tracks, proposals may take historical cases as their point of departure, provided they explicitly relate them to contemporary cases or tendencies. We welcome contributions from across humour studies, art and cultural studies, media studies, sociology, political theory, and adjacent fields. Comparative and transnational perspectives are especially encouraged.

Proposals of up to 300 words for 20-minute papers must be submitted, together with a bio blurb of up to 50 words, by August 31, 2026.

More information

AI is expanding the possibilities for humour, but is also making it more difficult for the audience to decide what is real and what is satire.

Alberto Godioli and Luisa Fernanda Isaza-Ibarra (University of Groningen / ForHum) were invited by Meta’s Oversight Board to submit two public comments on cases involving humour and AI. The Oversight Board uses these public comments to help shape their decisions and recommendations. In their comments, Alberto and Luisa explain why the initial confusion sometimes created by satire is a good (and necessary) thing, and how this actually helps in developing democratic literacy among citizens.

It’s funny because it’s (not) true: On the relationship between satire and misinformation

The first public comment is about the case of an AI-generated video of a politician posted before the Hungarian elections, and focuses on the relationship between satire and misinformation in social media content, particularly around political speech, and the challenges and trade-offs involved in moderating such posts.

Using 18th century satirist Jonathan Swift (and his sarcastic proposal to eat the children of the poor) as an example, Alberto and Luisa explain how satire has always depended on (temporary) confusion, which is exactly what makes satire effective. Furthermore, they argue that satirical confusion is not only an effective rhetorical device, but it can also have a beneficial effect on media literacy – and, consequently, on democratic debate, by encouraging us (the public) not to believe everything we read.

But they also address the risk of satire being taken at face value, and wrongly construed as misinformation.

Read full public comment

Jibe and Prejudice: On Satire, Deception, and Harm

The second public comment deals with the case of an AI video faking UK politician’s immigration views. Building on Abigail Williams’ book Reading It Wrong (2023), Alberto and Luisa draw a parallel between 18th-century British satire and present-day online culture – both being marked by the rise of new audiences, a dramatic increase in the circulation of texts, and the proliferation of allusive satirical expression, often playing with the risk of confusion or misunderstanding.

Given the higher confusion potential of AI deepfakes, it is all the more important for satirical deepfakes to display a degree of incongruity, setting them apart from outright deceptive content.

For example, South Park’s famous Donald Trump deepfake signals its satirical intent through the unrealistic imitation of the President’s voice, and through the fact that the video – at least in its original context – is embedded within an animated cartoon:

The comment also addresses that hateful nature of the case in question. While exposure to derogatory jokes does not necessarily spread prejudice, research has shown how it can facilitate the expression of existing prejudice within an online or offline setting.

Read full public comment

In both cases, Alberto and Luisa recommend a proportional approach when it comes to moderating this type of content. With regard to satirical deepfakes with clear humorous features, heavily relying on warning labels or removal of content could have a damaging effect on freedom of speech and media literacy. With regard to disparaging jokes, while takedowns are a viable option in severe cases, awareness-raising and counterspeech might often be a more effective way to address the underlying prejudice.

On 18 June 2026, Aitor Castañeda-Zumeta, professor of the University of the Basque Country, and a member of DELIAH, gave a workshop at the University of Navarra. In the workshop he explained the state of the art on humour and politics, designed for DELIAH by Aitor Castañeda-Zumeta, Marcos Engelken-Jorge and Carmelo Moreno del Río at the Basque Country University. This article is an edited version of his presentation. The presentation can be downloaded here.

The document with the state of the art and the whole database we used are available on our Zenodo, with a meta-analysis of more than 300 researches studying the relation between humour and politics.

The 300 researches have been published across the six DELIAH Consorium countries (Belgium, Estonia, Germany, the Netherlands, Slovakia, and Spain) since the year 2000.

In this workshop, I’ll only consider the works that cover the uses of humour in the democratic debate to specify what’s distinctive about humorous public communication, and to discuss how specific forms of humour can contribute to democracy.

DELIAH started working with a premise: Humour has gained political salience. This means that satirical shows and late-night TV-comedies provide increasing coverage of political issues, and former comedians have become public figures.

At the same time, the number of humour-related scandals has also grown significantly in many countries, attesting to the transnationalisation of public debates and the growing problematisation of humour regimes.

Against this backdrop, the deployment of humour to promote illiberal and exclusionary ideas has further fuelled the surge in studies focusing on humour and politics. More importantly; it has given additional impetus to the conception of humour as a tool.

We shall define what humour and what democracy are—or more accurately, how we understand them in this project, as there’s not a close or complete definition of both. DELIAH understands humour as a way of political discourse—communication—in which social issues and matters are relativised by viewing their comical of ridicule aspects.

Humorous discourse, materialised in cultural on- and off-line practices, can promote civic and democratic participation, or even discriminate collectives, as the superiority theory states.

The discriminatory potential of humour is the main concern of DELIAH. We understand democracy not only as the act of voting, but as a dynamic participation process that includes, in the words of Dahl,

• i) The inclusion of citizens

• ii) The control of the agenda

• iii) The effective participation

• iv) Voting equality

As we define humour as communication, humour practices can influence the democratic process in the same way as most other forms of communication. What matters from a political point of view is how humorous communicative acts are interpreted and contribute to the broader social context in which they take place.

According to humour theories, humour is usually used, first, to deprecate other people’s behaviours, traits, or messages. Second, humour practices are also deployed to reduce stress. Third, they serve to bring to light real or perceived inconsistencies in social life. Fourth, they’re used to engage in practices that push the boundaries of what can be said or done in a specific social context. Finally, they contribute to create a playful and—to many people—engaging environment.

These basic functions of humour don’t exhaust the meaning of humour practices in the democratic process. Yet they’re conceptual building-blocks that are used in more analyses of humour vis-à-vis specific democratic functions, that we divide into the following ones:

1. The drawing of symbolic boundaries

2. The communication of political information

3. Persuasion

4. Political mobilisation

5. Debate

6. Implementation of political decisions

7. Accountability

Symbolic boundaries

According to literature, humour practices are mostly used to negotiate symbolic and social boundaries. For example, to deal with questions such as who belongs to a social group, because humour “is a kind of social glue”, and “laughing together has similar bonding powers like marching, dancing, or singing together”—or even working together in this workshop.

Boundaries are ambiguous (in the sense that they both include and exclude specific people, behaviours, or ideas), so the role of humour practices in boundary-work is also ambiguous.

Humour reproduces exisiting boundaries, but can also challenge these boundaries

Additionally, humour practices can encourage people to reflect upon already existing boundary-issues, and/or enlarge membership and diversity in a group.

Ambiguity can also stem from features inherent to some humour practices, including their “condensed form of meaning”. For instance, cartoons often rely on well-known ‘cultural models’, such as the French Revolution, the Roman Empire—or the bullfighting here in Pamplona—to provide cues to readers to facilitate the recognition of the image.

This phenomenon reproduces—sometimes unintentionally—existing boundaries and social images, although humour practices can also be use to challenge stereotypes by making themselves visible.

Political information

Humour has also been argued to be an effective tool to convey political information, due to its engaging nature and capacity to encourage the viral spread of messages. See for example infotainment programmes, such as satirical TV-shows that convey relevant informative content—for example the Catalan show Polonia in Spain, Zondag met Lubach in the Netherlands or Zomri in Slovakia. All of them are influencers of the public agenda.

Such programmes are capable of attracting and maintaining audience attention, which gives them a strong communication capacity. But on the other hand, controversies persist over if humour distorts the information conveyed, or if it can disseminate information accurately.

Notice that I’m using the words ‘comedy’ and ‘satire’ naturally, but those are ambiguous concepts. While ‘comedy’ has been often used as a synonym of humour, ‘satire’ has been defined as a genre focused on promoting moral norms. In both bases, we’re referring to contents that pretend to stimulate laughter, even if it’s unclear if comedy or satire have the capacity to convey political information.

Empirical evidence in the six DELIAH countries shows that political interest is a dispositional type of interest which motivates people to search for political content. Regarding audience, we’re generally speaking about politically well-informed people who consume humorous programmes primarily because they are about politics.

Persuasion

We can wonder if the aforementioned TV-shows could persuade people or change their attitudes. The Dutch Zondag met Lubach, for example, contributed to undermine support for right-wing populist actors among right-wing voters by exposing the shortcomings of populist rhetoric. But whereas communication éxperts believe that satirical programmes can persuade people and influence their behaviour, ordinary citizens tend to reject this possibility, although scientific evidence shows that humour has been identified as a factor in contemporary processes of radicalisation.

Researchers have yet to find strong and consistent evidence of humour’s persuasive capacity

To complicate things further, research also shows that different groups can react differently to the same humorous message. Studies on the mechanisms underpinning persuasion processes contend that the persuasive potential of a humorous message rests on its ability to disrupt people’s ability to counter-argue—‘just a joke’. But all in all, “researchers have yet to find strong and consistent evidence of humour’s persuasive capacity”.

But what about humour’s priming effect? Humour can draw audience attention to concrete questions and not to others, as public communication does—of course, we must consider the media environment and people’s exposure. Unfortunately, there’s little research on the emotional dimension of humour and its effects.

Political mobilisation

Regarding political mobilisation, humour can increase the disposition to participate in collective action among people with a modest attitude expressed by the humorous message.

Similarly, comparative research suggests that political entertainment media can have a positive effect on citizens’ likelihood of engaging in politics. But as we saw, humour’s persuasive potential is far from conclusive.

What is clear—according to scientific evidence—is that humour is frequently used to attract media and public attention, and to engage people. Moreover, it’s often used to criticise political opponents—sometimes with hate speech—and manage conflicts.

The mainstream parties—we didn’t find a better term—confirm candidates’ growing participation in infotainment programmes and use of humorous-communication strategies, unsing humour to respond to criticism and also engage voters—especially the youngest.

Finally, research on social movements has paid attention on movements that employ humour to expose inconsistencies in the hegemonic social order, the same way earlier mobilisations did—or do.

Debate

The aforementioned satirical programmes, have shown a capacity to influence the public debate. These shows give presence to marginalised groups, and reach audiences that feel less attracted to other content, such as young people. Enabling the inclusion of such new voices implies that humour—especially online—allows the expression of dissent and the articulation of unpopular and shocking views, which also contributes to an inclusive democratic dialogue.

Humour allows the expression of dissent and unpopular views, which contribute to an inclusive democratic dialogue.

But humour practices have lately been associated with so-called ‘humour scandals’. They can be interpreted as ‘precipitating events’ that stimulate public discussion, but they also often reactivate political divisions, thus contributing little to the expression of new views or arguments.

See for instance many online humour practices, that seem to be primarily motivated by the desire to have fun. These include trolling, much of the humorous communication about politicians’ private lives, and much of the humorous communication sparked by electoral debates. In these cases, humour practices focus just on anecdotes and fail to convey relevant political content.

Implementation of political decisions

No research has been conducted on how humour is used to enforce political decisions, let alone its effects. This is a substantial gap, as there are plenty of examples of public authorities using humorous communication to disseminate information and nudge citizens.

Concerning the use of humour by public authorities, the only study available for the DELIAH countries focuses on the case of Berlin during the Covid-19 pandemic. Compliance with the prescribed hygienic measures was encouraged by the use of humorous signs that sought not only to convey relevant information about what should be done, but also to foster a sense of community.

Accountability

The relationship between humour and accountability is understood as a type of relationship in which public representatives and authorities can be forced to explain their actions. Citizens have powers to sanction or reward them.

Satirical shows provide ample space for the humorous treatment of policy-decisions and political events, especially during the Covid pandemic. More frequently, humour practices address aspects of politicians public persona, denouncing their behaviour and their alleged weakness or incompetence, even with aspects like their physical appearance or ethnic background, such as Omaba’s picture on Truth Social.

But humour can also serve the representatives to escape accountability. In any case, studies on humour and accountability are scarce in DELIAH countries.

Research on humour and politics often relies on small samples or case studies that pay little attention to how social groups react to humour. Some studies suggest that there has been a growing societal acceptance of humorous and entertaining cultural products.

In addition, recent ‘connective’ forms of mobilisation and more participatory organisational cultures have been associated with an intensified and more strategic use of humour, particularly among social movements. Memes are especially used by young people and groups engaging in harmful humour.

People prefer and judge as less harmful those humour practices that align with their attitudes or with their social positions. The literature suggest that more educated people are less likely to react positively to harmful forms of humour. Familiarity with the cultural codes of memes also influence humour appreciation; that also depends on whether social groups are dominant or marginalised—these last ones are likely to be more sensitive to harmful humour, but they also appreciate self-parody.

What can we do against harmful humour?

This is the greater question of this analysis. The (scarce) literature mostly addresses humorous communication as part of the broader question of how to deal with hate speech and exclusionary communication. In addition, research paying attention to harmful humour concludes that counter-strategies have been ineffective or counterproductive.

The absence of effective countermeasures has been traced back to the still insufficient understanding of the social groups engaging in exclusionary communication, their audiences, and their sub-cultures, which has been recently corroborated by research on the manosphere in the UK.

Similarly, research on online misinformation confirms a pattern of heterogeneous behaviours and orientations among internet users. It shows that a relatively small number of users produce and share most of the content, while a significantly larger number only share a few posts.

But if harmful humour is interpreted in the broader context of polarisation and the mobilisation of authoritarian populist actors, the evidence suggests that this type of humour is rooted in discontent caused by actual processes of cultural and economic change. Accordingly, countermeasures targeting communication alone are likely to be insufficient.

If humour can activate latent extremist beliefs, it can also contribute to the formation of democratic attitudes

However, this doesn’t imply that humorous communication plays no role in disseminating hate-speech and antidemocratic attitudes, nor that counter-strategies targeting harmful humour are futile. If humour can help to activate and consolidate the latent extremist beliefs of some individuals, it can also contribute to the formation of specific attitudes among those with no clear views on a given topic.

Harmful humour can have an insidious effect particularly on young people. Possible countermeasures include judicial oversight and content moderation by social media companies. Here, we focus on additional measures that can be implemented by civil society actors.

In this respect, the available literature identifies some pitfalls that should be avoided. First, the amplification of the harmful content when denouncing it. Second, overreacting to harmful humour, which can be easily reinterpreted as a sign of intolerance, social conformity, or ‘wokeness’. Third, harsh public condemnations can also backfire by encouraging people to counter-argue and stick more firmly to their views.

Bearing this in mind, two different sets of promising counter-strategies can be identified. The first includes measures that can be implemented on delimited groups of people, such as those in educational contexts. They reduce the risk of amplifying humorous hate speech and overreacting to harmful humour, as they consist of scripted interventions.

Potential counter-strategies can take inspiration from, for example, the non-judgemental exchange of narratives. Namely, “a strategy where an individual attempts to persuade another person by (...) eliciting from them narratives about relevant personal experiences while non-judgmentally listening to the views they express.”

The goal of the intervention is to encourage perspective-taking and so-called self-persuasion, which has been shown to durably change people’s attitudes. While not specifically targeting harmful humour practices, this countermeasure can address humour’s negative consequences in the form of antidemocratic and exclusionary attitudes among young people.

Similarly, ‘edutainment’ has yielded promising results in combatting misinformation and it could be investigated if edutainment, including forms of counter-humour, could be leveraged for democratic education.

Although the available empirical evidence shows that people are usually capable of identifying hate speech when it’s presented as humour, humour can rely on cultural codes that are not widely understood. Accordingly, interventions on young people can be paired with the dissemination of information to help parents quickly identify potentially harmful content in their children’s online activity.

The second set of possible counter-strategies is supplementary and wider in scope. It aims to change the cultural repertoire, particularly the narratives and frames used by social actors to publicly express their preferences. In this regard, some scholars—from outside the humour and politics field—advocate producing and disseminating alternative, more inclusionary narratives through which the grievances currently expressed through hate speech can be conveyed in a less toxic manner.

These interventions don’t directly engage with harmful humour or other forms of antidemocratic and exclusionary speech, which runs the risk of amplifying their content and producing backlash. Instead, they strive to expand the cultural repertoire so that people can find new and less toxic ways of expressing their demands. This requires collaboration with influential social and political actors engaged or willing to engage in this activity, such as civil society organisations, artists, people in the cultural industries, and political parties.

In this edition we talk to Irina Dulebová from Comenius University in Bratislava. For DELIAH, the team from Slovakia is working on WP 6, analysing humour and fostering democratic participation in times of conflict.

Could you briefly tell us who you are, where you are from and what you do?

I am a philologist at Comenius University in Bratislava, an Associate Professor in Slavic Studies and a Professor at the Department of Russian and East European Studies. My research focuses primarily on political and media linguistics, discourse analysis, and linguoculturology. Within the DELIAH consortium, I am a member of the Slovak research team, where I mainly investigate forms of humour and users’ responses to them on the social media platforms Facebook and Instagram.

What never truly makes me laugh is Slovak political humour. It often touches upon such painful aspects of our political life that it feels more like laughing through tears.

What’s something that you find funny?

On the one hand, I am a fan of everyday humour connected with situations in familiar environments: academia, schools, hospitals, public transport, theatres, parenting (I am a mother of two and a grandmother of two), family celebrations, generational differences in traditions, and similar contexts:

At the same time, as a political linguist and a citizen of the European Union who strongly sympathises with Ukraine following Russia’s aggressive invasion, I particularly appreciate humour related to this conflict. Such humour can make me laugh, but it also prompts me to pause, reflect, and analyse:

Translation: News - Russia has the world’s first flying saucer

What never truly makes me laugh, however, is Slovak political humour. It often touches upon such painful aspects of our troubled political life that, even when I find it genuinely witty, it feels more like laughing through tears.

How did you become involved in the field of humour research?

I first explored aspects of humour and the creation of comic effects within the framework of linguocultural research, for example, by examining humorous elements in linguoculturemes, idioms, and phraseological expressions.

In my research on political and media discourse, I have also addressed the ways in which comic effects are created through metaphors, idioms, proverbs, and sayings.

Furthermore, in my habilitation thesis on I first explored aspects of humour and the creation of comic effects within the framework of linguocultural research, for example, by examining humorous elements in linguoculturemes, idioms, and phraseological expressions.

I have co-authored a number of scholarly articles examining various forms and manifestations of humour in Slovak culture and communication:

Within the DELIAH project, I focus on the study of humour communities on Slovak Facebook and Instagram. I analyse their discursive strategies and communicative tactics, as well as the reactions of their followers expressed through comments.

Partial results of this analysis were published in the conference proceedings Language and Politics X (Bratislava) in the article Differences in the Discursive Strategies of Humorous Communities on Slovak Social Media (Dulebova, 2025): The contribution examines humorous online communities operating within the Slovak segment of social media, specifically Facebook and Instagram. In light of the growing influence of digital humour, it analyses the diverse discursive strategies and argumentative tactics through which these communities express political attitudes, critique social developments, and construct group identities. The research demonstrates that the discursive practices of these communities are not random; rather, they dynamically adapt to the political preferences, cultural values, and communicative norms of their audiences.

What do you think the role is of humour in society, and specifically in relation to democracy?

In the digital age, humour has become an important component of public communication. Memes, satirical posts, and humorous communities on social media now influence the way people perceive politics, social events, and the identity of their own communities. Humour can foster democratic debate by making complex issues more accessible to a broader audience and by creating opportunities for civic engagement. At the same time, however, it can also spread stereotypes, misinformation, and deepen social polarization. This is why it is important to study not only what people laugh at, but also the social consequences of that laughter.

p.s.

From the perspective of political linguistics, I view humour as a distinct form of political communication. It enables criticism to be expressed in ways that are often more acceptable and effective than direct confrontation. Humour can simplify complex political issues, encourage civic engagement, and stimulate public debate. At the same time, however, it can also be used as a tool for manipulation, the ridicule of opponents, or the intensification of social polarization. In a democracy, therefore, humour is not only an expression of freedom of speech but also an indicator of the quality of public discourse.

Slovak humour is often characterized by “laughter through tears,” helping people cope with challenges, uncertainty, and social tensions. I believe that Slovak humour combines wit with a touch of melancholy. We often find ourselves laughing at things that are both sad and absurd.

A significant feature of Slovak humour is linguistic playfulness, manifested in puns, phraseological expressions, proverbs, and the creative use of dialectal varieties.

Like many cultures, Slovak humour includes jokes and stereotypes concerning neighbouring nations and ethnic minorities, especially Hungarians, Roma, Czechs, Poles, and Rusyns.

Regional and dialect-based humour is another characteristic feature of Slovak humour, often drawing on stereotypes associated with particular regions of Slovakia and their linguistic peculiarities.

According to my observations, Slovaks are less inclined toward dark humour than some other nations, such as the British. They seem to have relatively clear boundaries regarding what is considered an acceptable subject of humour and what is not. These boundaries often concern topics such as death, serious illness, physical disabilities, and other sensitive personal circumstances.

In a democracy, humour is not only an expression of freedom of speech but also an indicator of the quality of public discourse.

What’s characteristic about the humour in your country?

Slovak humour is often characterized by “laughter through tears,” helping people cope with challenges, uncertainty, and social tensions. I believe that Slovak humour combines wit with a touch of melancholy. We often find ourselves laughing at things that are both sad and absurd.

A significant feature of Slovak humour is linguistic playfulness, manifested in puns, phraseological expressions, proverbs, and the creative use of dialectal varieties.

Like many cultures, Slovak humour includes jokes and stereotypes concerning neighbouring nations and ethnic minorities, especially Hungarians, Roma, Czechs, Poles, and Rusyns.

Regional and dialect-based humour is another characteristic feature of Slovak humour, often drawing on stereotypes associated with particular regions of Slovakia and their linguistic peculiarities.

According to my observations, Slovaks are less inclined toward dark humour than some other nations, such as the British. They seem to have relatively clear boundaries regarding what is considered an acceptable subject of humour and what is not. These boundaries often concern topics such as death, serious illness, physical disabilities, and other sensitive personal circumstances.

What do you hope to achieve with your research connected to DELIAH?

I hope that our research will contribute to a better understanding of how humour functions in digital communication and how it influences public debate. My goal is to gain a better understanding of the role of humour on social media and its impact on democratic communication.

I would like to contribute to a deeper understanding of the discursive strategies employed by humorous communities and their influence on the formation of public opinion. I hope that the results of our research will help explain how humour can either support or, conversely, undermine democratic dialogue.

Below you can find the recordings of the lectures by the DELIAH team.

When Jokes go to Court: Humorous Expression and Free Speech Adjudication

Professor Dr. Alberto Godioli (University of Groningen, the Netherlands) spoke about the relationship between humour and freedom of expression.

Hot-Dog-Shaped Earth and Biomosquitoes: Teenagers, Conspiracy Talk, and Humor

Prof. Dr. Anastasiya Astapova (University of Tartu, Estonia) gave a lecture about disinformation, conspiracy theories, and humour.

The Power of Political Cartoons

Cartoonist Tjeerd Royaards (Cartoon Movement, the Netherlands) gave a talk titled ‘The power of cartoons’, in which he explored why simple lines on paper are so effective at mocking the powerful.

They have released their latest Transparency Report.

The report covers the period April 2026 until March 2026. In this period, they received over 24,000 disputes from people and organizations across the EU. More than half of these were eligible disputes, meaning he Centre could deal with them.

Furthermore the report shows that on average , the Appeals Centre disagreed with the platform’s decision 59% of the time. This shows the importance of dispute settlement bodies in helping users challenge both platform decisions to remove their content and to leave harmful content on social media.

It also shows the importance and relevance of DELIAH research. Our Work Package 3 deals specifically with finding the best practices when it comes to online content moderation, striking a balance between the legitimate sanctioning of certain forms of disparaging humour (which can be a serious threat to democratic participation) and the protections for freedom of expression. Read more about our latest progress on WP3 (including our database of legal cases and content moderation decisions) here:

Work Package 3 update

Although the need for independent dispute settlement is apparent, the social media companies themselves are still reluctant to cooperate. The most frequent dispute type received by the Appeals Centre is that of account suspensions, because of the severe impact this has on the user. Unfortunately, social media companies are still reluctant to cooperate, as the report indicates:

‘In the vast majority of cases related to account suspensions, platforms are unable or unwilling to provide the content which allows us to independently review their decisions.’

If you’re interested in learning more, check out the full report:

Read full report

To challenge a social media platform’s decision yourself, go to www.appealscentre.eu.

DELIAH is happy to announce its first deliverable developed under Work Package 3, which consists of a searchable database of legal cases and online content moderation decisions regarding disparaging humour and freedom of expression.

Disparaging humour, namely humour that ‘denigrates, belittles, or maligns an individual or social group’ (Ford and Ferguson 2004), can constitute a serious threat to democratic participation, by undermining the very existence of a healthy and inclusive public sphere. This is especially the case in the digital age, as potentially harmful material can circulate ‘virally’ well beyond its original context. On the other hand, any attempt to counter the effects of disparaging humour should be balanced with robust protections for freedom of expression – which, as established by the European Court of Human Rights in Handyside v. United Kingdom, also applies to material that can ‘offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population’.

Whether through judicial processes or through online content moderation, judges and digital platform companies must decide whether a certain contested humorous expression qualifies as disparaging; and if so, whether it should be sanctioned. This task is not easy: when making their decisions, judges and platforms must strike a delicate balance between protecting people from harmful speech and allowing for lively democratic debate.

These topical issues lie at the heart of Work Package 3 (WP3) of the DELIAH project, titled ‘Disparaging humour and democracy: Best practices for free speech jurisprudence and content moderation’. The lead researchers of WP3 are Dr Alberto Godioli and PhD candidate Luisa Fernanda Isaza-Ibarra (University of Groningen). Under WP3, DELIAH will ultimately build recommendations on best practices for judges and content moderation bodies adjudicating on humorous contents. To do so, we first need to understand how judges and platforms are already making decisions. This is why the first task of WP3 was to build a database of cases concerning disparaging humour coming from judicial and semi-judicial adjudication bodies (deliverable D3.1).

Find out more via the following links:

• Database of legal cases and content moderation decisions

• Methodological note and codebook

Hello!

This is our third newsletter since the start of the project in March 2026. Our research is now well underway; in this newsletter, you will find our latest research updates, but also a report from our annual meeting in Estonia, videos from our session at the International Journalism Festival, and more.

If you don’t want to miss out any DELIAH news, follow us on LinkedIn, Bluesky, Instagram or Facebook.

Annual meeting in Estonia

From April 20 to April 24, members of DELIAH came together in Estonia for our annual project meeting. The first half of the week took place in Tartu, at the University of Tartu. The second half of the annual gathering took place in Tallinn, where we were hosted by the Tallinn University for a public-facing event in the form of a two-day workshop for PhD students, titled Humour Matters: Laughter and Democracy.

Read more

DELIAH at the International Journalism Festival

DELIAH team members Alberto Godioli and Tjeerd Royaards gave an interactive workshop at the International Journalism Festival titled The importance of humour for democracy: good humour vs bad humour. In the workshop, we present different court cases that involve humour in one way or another. We explain the case and its background, and after the explanation we ask the audience what they think the outcome of the case was. Was the cartoonist or satirist sanctioned by the court, or did the judges decide that no line was crossed? After we take stock of the audience response, the actual outcome of the case is revealed.

Read more

You can watch our session here:

Finding out how Europeans think about humour and democracy

Work Package 2 is currently underway, which means we (or rather, our subcontractor, IPSOS) have organized focus groups in the countries where DELIAH is active (Germany, Spain, Slovakia, Estonia, Belgium and The Netherlands). The analysis will be ready in a couple of months, but we did already write an article about how such a focus group works, what we show them and what is discussed.

Some interesting takeaways were how different people interpret humour in different ways (in particular one cartoon that was shared in the focus group) and how they responded to court cases involving humour:

Read more

Database of female and non-cisgender comedians active in the 21st-century Anglophone world

A new resource for stand-up comedy research

DELIAH is pleased to announce the launch of a research database documenting over 500 female and non-cisgender comedians active in the Anglophone world during the 21st century. Developed under Work Package 7, it is part of a broader research project that examines how these performers have reshaped stand-up comedy, fostering new forms of societal critique, self-reflection, and alternative speech.

Read more

Interviews with DELIAH team members

To introduce our team, we are continuing our series of interviews with DELIAH researchers.

All our interviews

Other DELIAH news

• Alberto Godioli gave a lecture at the Bevrijdingsfestival Groningen (Liberation Day festival in the Netherlands). Our exhibition Designed to Provoke was also on display here.

• DELIAH partner University of Göttingen is organising a lecture series this summer titled Lachen in Krisenzeiten (Laughter in times of crisis).

  Read more

• A new report on the situation of threatened press cartoonists around the world has been published by Cartooning for Peace and Cartoonists Rights.

  Read more

• Nina Cingerová gave a radio interview about humour and DELIAH research.

  Listen (in Slovak)

• Carmelo Moreno and Marcos Engelken-Jorge will represent DELIAH at the 18th Congress of Political Science and Public Administration in September.

  Read more

• Alberto Godioli and Tjeerd Royaards will give a workshop about humour and court cases at the Dutch Journalism Festival in Deventer (The Netherlands) in September.

  Read more (in Dutch)

Our publications

Here is an overview of our publication so far, which have been published on our Zenodo:

• Meta-analysis of humour practices and democratic attitudes in the European context

• Humour practices and European attitudes towards democracy – data documentation

• Working bibliography of scholarship on stand-up comedy

Contact

If you want to know more, invite one of us to speak at your conference or event, or interview one of our team members, please send an email to info@deliah.eu

_{Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the granting authority. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.}

From April 20 to April 24, the members of DELIAH came together in Estonia for our annual project meeting. The first half of the week took place at the University of Tartu. With the project already underway for over a year, we took the occasion to take stock of what we have done in the past 12 months and what we will being doing in the future.

DELIAH has made a lot of progress. We conducted a meta-analysis of the relationship between humour and democracy, created a database of comedians, and teamed up with our sister projects to produce a series of policy recommendations for the European Commission’s Democracy Shield. We are also currently processing the data from the focus-groups we conducted throughout Europe over the last few months. Click on the links below to find out more about these initiatives (and visit our Zenodo for a full overview of our research).

Humour and democracy

Database female/non-cisgender comedians

European Democracy Shield

How do Europeans think about humour?

The second half of our annual gathering took place at Tallinn University, where we ran a public-facing event: a two-day workshop for PhD students, titled Humour Matters: Laughter and Democracy.

A series of lectures, workshops, and seminars provided a broad overview of current research into humour. The first day, thematically titled Foundations & Practices, started with a joint lecture by Anastasiya Fiadotava (Estonian Literature Museum) and Guillem Castañar Rubio (Tallinn University), who explained how and why we study humour.

This overview was followed by a lecture on how to address harmful humour on online platforms by a member of DELIAH’s External Advisory Board (EAB), Ariadna Matamoros-Fernández (University College Dublin), with special attention to community-driven moderation, such as Community Notes on X.

The final event of the day was a workshop by the Dutch cartoonist Tjeerd Royaards, who explained why political cartoons can be such a powerful medium to communicate opinions and who challenged participants to draw their own cartoons.

In the evening, stand-up comedians Ana Falcon, Stewart Johnson, Jana Levitina, and Kelly Stone gave a performance, followed by a panel discussion where they explained their approach to and views on humour.

On the second day, we talked about the challenges and stakes in the field of humour, starting with a seminar examining humour scandals in Spain run by Carmen Maíz-Arévalo (Complutense University of Madrid).

A second DELIAH EAB member, Dennis Meyhoff Brink (DIS in Copenhagen), gave a compelling presentation titled The Proliferation of Satirical Depictions of Muhammad in the Age of Their Prohibition in which he argued that the number of satirical depictions of Mohammad has actually increased since the Danish cartoon controversy of 2005-06 and the attack on Charlie Hebdo in 2015.

Finally, we discussed ongoing research in various projects with:

• Andrew Bricker (Ghent University) from DELIAH

  DELIAH investigates the role of humour in fostering democratic literacy, with a particular focus on how comedic practices shape citizens’ understanding of democratic norms, values, and conflicts. The project examines humour as a form of civic communication that can both strengthen democratic engagement and contribute to exclusion or polarization. Through interdisciplinary methods, DELIAH explores how humour operates across media, education, and public discourse, and how democratic competencies related to humour can be developed and taught.

  Learn more

• Alberto Godioli (University of Groningen) from FORHUM: Forum for Humor and the Law

  FORHUM is an international platform dedicated to exploring the relationship between humour, freedom of expression, and the law. Bringing together legal scholars, humour researchers, practitioners, and artists, the project documents and analyses legal cases involving satire and humour from a comparative perspective. FORHUM aims to improve understanding of how humour is evaluated in legal contexts and to support more nuanced approaches to humour-related disputes in democratic societies.

  Learn more

• Carmen Maíz-Arévalo (Universidad Complutense Madrid) from HUMLIT: Humour Literacy: Reframing Conflict and Controversy in the Public Sphere

  HUMLIT focuses on humour literacy as a key civic competence for navigating conflict, controversy, and offence in the public sphere. The project examines how individuals and communities interpret, negotiate, and respond to humour in politically sensitive contexts. By combining discourse analysis, case studies, and pedagogical approaches, HUMLIT aims to develop tools that help citizens critically engage with humour while fostering democratic dialogue and resilience.

  Learn more

• Johanna Koljonen Pedersen (Tampere University) from Larpocracy: Live Action Role-Play and Democratic Participation

  Larpocracy explores the use of live action role-playing (LARP) as an experimental and participatory method for democratic engagement. The project investigates how embodied, playful simulations can help participants experience political decision-making, conflict, and cooperation from multiple perspectives. By blending performance, game design, and political theory, Larpocracy examines the democratic potential of immersive play as a tool for civic education and participation.

  Learn more

• Sini Hassinen and Sara Brandellero (Leiden University) from Democracy in Action: Participatory Practices, Media, and Civic Engagement

  Democracy in Action examines contemporary forms of participatory democracy, focusing on the role of media, communication practices, and grassroots initiatives in shaping civic engagement. The project analyses how citizens interact with democratic institutions and each other through both traditional and digital media, with attention to inclusion, deliberation, and democratic innovation. It aims to identify practices that strengthen active citizenship and democratic resilience in changing media environments.

  Learn more

• Ana Yara Postigo Fuentes (University of Düsseldorf) from ARENAS: Analysis of and Responses to Extremist Narratives

All in all, it was productive and successful week. We exchanged ideas and insights about humour and democracy and strengthened the bonds between DELIAH researchers and between DELIAH and other research projects, facilitating further cooperation in the future. We are looking forward to our third annual meeting in Bratislava next spring!

DELIAH team members Alberto Godioli and Tjeerd Royaards gave an interactive workshop at the festival titled The importance of humour for democracy: good humour vs bad humour. In the workshop, we present different court cases that involve humour in one way or another. We explain the case and its background, and after the explanation we ask the audience what they think the outcome of the case was. Was the cartoonist or satirist sanctioned by the court, or did the judges decide that no line was crossed? After we take stock of the audience response, the actual outcome of the case is revealed.

The workshop not only deals with different types of humor, but also different types of offences, such as defamation, hate speech and intellectual property infringement (in the case of parodies). The idea behind the session is to encourage reflection on the role of humour within the public debate. As Alberto Godioli puts it: “In some cases, the humour might be awful, but it’s lawful.”

You can watch our session here:

Tjeerd Royaards also gave a session about the power of political cartoons:

In this edition we talk to Ismet Suleimanov from the University of Tartu in Estonia. For DELIAH, the team from Estonia is working on WP 6, analysing humour and fostering democratic participation in times of conflict.

Could you briefly tell us who you are, where you are from and what you do?

I’m Ismet from Crimea — that’s how I usually introduce myself. Once someone even asked for a shorter version of my name because, for many tourists in Crimea, non Slavic names are a sort of tongue-twisters. Five letters, Carl1. I’m sure you’ve already managed to memorize it. Saying I’m from the peninsula often makes people wonder whether I’m Crimean Tatar, which then triggers an endless conversation about this part of my identity and the contested reality it entails. I find it important to emphasize that after “Crimea,” there’s a comma — and then “Ukraine.”

Currently, I’m a junior research fellow (PhD student) at the University of Tartu and part of the DELIAH project. My research explores humour practices and the adjustment of Ukrainian refugees during the Russo Ukrainian war. I focus on the roles, functions, forms, and genres of everyday humour as mechanisms of social and cultural adjustment, as well as the role of gender in humour use and production.

Even today, when people hear that I study humour, many are surprised that it’s an academic topic

What’s something that you find funny?

The first thing that comes to mind is my father. He belongs to that disappearing generation of people who have an anecdote for every life situation. I spent my childhood listening to his stories — many of them collected during the Brezhnev era and the 90s. When he and my uncle got together at family gatherings, jokes would ping pong across the table. Those were some of the funniest moments of my life.

As a child, I loved movies with Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler, and Eddie Murphy. Funny fact: I didn’t know their real voices until I was 16 because everything was dubbed. The translations deserve a separate discussion — especially the famous “Goblin” versions known among Russophones. I wasn’t really allowed to watch them because of the explicit language, but when I did, I laughed a lot.

Growing up with Ukrainian TV, I was exposed to comedy shows like KVN, Kvartal 95, and various humorous reality shows. Excerpts from them have long become part of everyday folklore.

These days, I’m drawn to videos circulating on Instagram and Ukrainian memes on Telegram. I wish I could share my algorithm here because choosing just one example feels impossible. Still, here’s a link to my favourite Telegram channel with political memes — I find it funny because it’s so relatable and reflects current events in Ukraine in a hilariously sharp way.

And I can’t resist sharing my absolute favourite — Optimus Gang. Unfortunately, their humour is almost untranslatable, and I doubt non Russophones can fully grasp the comedic nuances. I’ve watched each of their sketches at least five times. It’s hard to explain why they’re so funny, but Elliot Oring’s appropriate incongruity theory might offer some clues.

How did you become involved in the field of humour research?

It may sound like an exaggeration, but I feel I’ve been unconsciously involved in humour research for a long time. I often found myself thinking about what a joke is actually trying to say. This became especially noticeable after the occupation of Crimea, when people began reflecting on the situation through Aesopian language — often using humour.

I became formally involved in humour research only after joining DELIAH. I’ll be honest: before starting my PhD, I didn’t know this field existed, although I suspected it might. Even today, when people hear that I study humour, many are surprised that it’s an academic topic.

What do you think the role is of humour in society, and specifically in relation to democracy?

From an early age, I understood that humour can empower, harm, or simply bring joy. As a child, you learn that quickly. Later, I realized that humour can express truths without serious consequences, if you’re fast enough to say ‘it’s just a joke,’ — it can ventriloquize real feelings about sensitive subjects.

My colleague Andrew describes humour as polyvalent, and I agree. I’d add that it constantly morphs from situation to situation. Humour is available to everyone, whether their intentions are democratic or not, which means it can become anyone’s weapon.

Humour is available to everyone, whether their intentions are democratic or not, which means it can become anyone’s weapon

What’s characteristic about the humour in your country?

I grew up learning that Ukraine is the largest country in Europe, and Ukrainians from east to west are diverse. Being from Crimea, I’m not brave enough to define “Ukrainian humour” as a whole. Ukraine’s history is full of dramatic events — many of which are still unfolding. These experiences have left visible marks on contemporary humour, which tends to be ironic and dark. The boundaries of what can be laughed at are very wide, and sometimes I’m not even sure we have taboos at all. This contrasts with Crimean Tatar humour, where many topics are sensitive and restricted areas are carefully navigated to avoid ostracism.

What do you hope to achieve with your research connected to DELIAH?

I’m truly happy to work together with such professionals in our DELAIH project. Together with my colleague and supervisor Anastasiya Astapova, I hope to meaningfully contribute in understanding relationship between experience of displacement and humour, in my case Ukrainian refugees in Estonia and Belgium, as well how it fosters adjustment in times of conflict. I find this topic extremely important and undeservedly underresearched. I think DELIAH is an ideal start to achieve such input and continue developing this close ties between two fields – humour and migration.

In this edition we talk to Aitor Castañeda-Zumeta from the University of the Basque Country in Spain. For DELIAH, the team from Spain is working on WP1 and WP2, analysing the relationship between humour and democracy and running focus groups to find out how Europeans think about humour.

Could you briefly tell us who you are, where you are from and what you do?

I am Aitor Castañeda-Zumeta, PhD in Social Communication from the University of the Basque Country (Spain). With a background in advertising, I have worked as a graphic designer and contributed to several press outlets. I am currently part of DELIAH, where I am developing work packages focused on humorous stimuli and social topics. My research lines center on graphic humor in the press.

If a society wishes to endure and imagine a long-term future, a sense of humor is indispensable

What’s something that you find funny?

I can find funny things on everyday life, depending on how I look at it—I publish current-affairs comic strips in newspapers and digital blogs. My favourite source of humor is absurd takes on day-to-day situations; social media offers an endless supply of videos and memes along those lines. I greatly enjoy memes and jokes created by ordinary users, everyday people laughing at their own routines. It’s pure therapy!

In addition, I appreciate dark and politically incorrect humour—always within very specific and private circles, of course. We all have a few guilty pleasures we keep to ourselves.

How did you become involved in the field of humour research?

In my personal case, I have always practiced graphic humor; when I was 17, my friends and I published our first fanzine in my hometown, funded by the local city council, and I’ve never stopped since. In fact, alongside advertising, I also studied illustration and graphic arts.

When I finished my degree and was given the chance to carry on a PhD project, it was immediately clear to me that graphic humor was the journalistic genre—if we can consider it as such—that I wanted to study. That is how my path began: always guided by newspaper comic strips and their ability to reflect social issues, perceptions, and the concerns of the communities in which those cartoons are produced.

Humor, as an art form, is also a social symptom—to use Panofsky’s words—and it captures the collective psyche remarkably well.

What do you think the role is of humour in society, and specifically in relation to democracy?

Humor has the capacity to put things into perspective. It levels the small with the significant, and vice versa. At a social level, it helps us appreciate the absurd side of things and ease the weight of problems. If a society wishes to endure and imagine a long-term future, a sense of humor is indispensable.

From a democratic standpoint, I would argue that one of the fundamental pillars of liberal democracy is the ability to view one’s adversary as precisely that—an adversary, not an enemy; an equal whom I must persuade. For such an exchange to take place, dogmas need to soften and rough edges must be smoothed out. Humor is an ideal tool for this purpose—taking one’s own ideology too seriously often leads to fragmentation and polarization.

Satire and sarcasm can serve to belittle the other, dismiss their ideas, or ridicule their personal traits. When that happens, democratic exchange weakens

The greatest social tension triggered by humor lies in its relativising power: truly serious matters may be reduced to nothing, or adversaries may be ridiculed to the extreme—what is traditionally understood as satire. Satire and sarcasm can serve to belittle the other, dismiss their ideas, or ridicule their personal traits… ultimately, to push them aside. When that happens, democratic exchange weakens, and social cohesion becomes impossible.

Even so, it is essential to understand that humor is part of human freedom—something elites or states may try to persecute or restrict, but never fully eliminate. Human beings are homo ridens. This is why totalitarian regimes are so invested in suppressing humor: it escapes boundaries. Recognizing freedom means acknowledging that humor also has harmful nuances, but that does not diminish its role as a necessary tool for mental stability and for cultivating the ability to view things with balance and perspective.

What’s characteristic about the humour in your country?

According to Tubau1, Spanish graphic humor is the best in the world. At the same time, in the Basque lands it is often said that humor is scarce and, due to a certain dogmatic streak, not particularly appreciated2. We could therefore speak of two national dimensions. My “greater homeland” (Spain) has a distinctly Mediterranean character—sunny, relaxed, informal, shaped by a Catholic heritage: since the Lord forgives us, let’s worry a little less, and “tomorrow will tell.” The Basque Country, however, is rainy, humid, somewhat darker, and home to people who tend to be more dogmatic—political fragmentation has always run deep here.

For this reason, I would say it is easier to come across a Spaniard with a natural sense of humor, and somewhat more difficult to find a humorous Basque. Unfortunately, growing polarization means that even the happiest societies are becoming increasingly rigid, and therefore less inclined toward humor—could our research help?

What do you hope to achieve with your research connected to DELIAH?

I hope to gain a deeper understanding of the concerns of my fellow Europeans—how they express them and what they find amusing. I would also like to contribute to a more open and self-aware Europe, one with stronger media literacy and fewer legal restrictions—in other words, a more liberal one. And of course, as an academic, I aim to publish findings that are meaningful for colleagues working in my field—and, if possible, to bring them a bit of joy as well.

There will be a lecture covering various aspects of humour every Tuesday between April 14 and July 14. If you want to attend any of the lectures (in German), here is the full program (click to enlarge):

DELIAH team member and political cartoonist Tjeerd Royaards will give a workshop and a lecture about the power of political cartoons om June 9. The workshop will be a hand-on immersion into political cartoons, challenging participants to visualize their own opinion and create a sharp image themselves. The lecture will focus on why cartoons can have such an impact and what tools cartoonists use to create their work.

Workshop - June 9, 10.00 - 12:00

Lecture - June 9, 18:15

Focus groups are taking place in different regions of each country. In this manner, we hope to take into account not only national differences, but also geographic differences within countries, such as the divide between the city and the countryside, or, in the case of Spain, the differences between the north and the south. In addition, our focus groups will vary, with people from different demographic backgrounds in each of them. For instance, a focus group made up of middle-aged people from rural areas with a conservative outlook or a focus group of young people with different gender-identities living in cities. We hope to find out how Europeans think about humour (and its role in democracy) across different social groups.

The data we gather (and the ensuing analysis of the data) will hopefully help us to identify starting points for policy recommendations, specifically on multimedia content moderation and democratic engagement. We also aim to identify topics for further research into the relationship between humour and civic discourse.

The analysis will be ready in a couple of months. For now, we thought it might be interesting to share a more anecdotal perspective on how such a focus group works, what we show them and what is discussed, but only in a general way, of course, as we want to respect the privacy of the people taking part.

In humour, much depends on interpretation. One cartoon was seen as a celebration of diversity by some, but a mockery of gender identities by others.

The focus group we write about here was held earlier this month in Amsterdam, with a group of people from migrant backgrounds. The focus group started with a general discussion to get a sense of what kind of humour the members of the group engage with. Do they consume a lot of ‘political’ humour? And what are their thoughts about the role of humour in public debate and in a democracy more generally?

After an initial discussion, the group viewed and rated examples of humour. The samples gathered by DELIAH researchers cover different forms of humour (from memes and political cartoons to street art) with different political leanings, from left to right. After rating the various humour samples, the members discussed which ones they liked (and why) and which ones they would likely share.

What was interesting to see is how much depends on interpretation. Take this cartoon, for instance:

Is it a celebration of diversity, showing that everyone is entitled to their own space? Or does it mock a supposedly ever-growing multitude of (gender-)identities? Both views were present in this focus group.

After discussing the visual materials, the focus group watched two satirical videos from two Dutch humour shows that covered Trump and climate change. Again, a discussion followed. How does humour help to raise awareness, debate, and maybe even action when it comes to serious topics, such as the climate crisis? Here is one of the satirical videos, made at the time of the first inauguration of Trump:

Finally, the group discussed two court cases involving humour—with a catch. They were briefed about each case, but were then asked to come up with a verdict themselves. Only after they had formed their own judgement was the actual verdict of the court revealed.

The first case was against Mike Ward, a stand-up comedian from Canada. Ward had a routine in which he mocked certain figures in Québec’s community, who he referred to as “sacred cows” that could not be made fun of for various reasons. This included Jeremy Gabriel, a child singer (and thus public figure) who was born with Treacher Collins syndrome, a rare genetic disorder that affects facial bone and tissue development. Ward mocked Gabriel both in his stand-up routine and in a video he posted online, making fun of his physical appearance. Gabriel’s parents filed a complaint for discrimination with the Human Rights Commission.

The question for the focus group was:

Should it always be allowed to mock public figures or is making fun of someone’s disabilities crossing a red line?

Click the button to find out the actual verdict (it’s a long read, but you can also scroll down for a summary):

Verdict

The second case involved a t-shirt with the following design:

Z.B., a Frenchman, gave his three-year-old nephew a personalized T-shirt with the words “I am a bomb” (Je suis une bombe) on the front and “Jihad born on September 11” (Jihad, né le 11 septembre) on the back. The T-shirt was a birthday gift. The child was indeed born on September 11, 2009, and is named Jihad, a common proper name in the Arab world. The term “bomb” can also mean “very sexy” in French.

The child wore the T-shirt to his kindergarten only a few months after seven people, including three children at a Jewish school, had been killed in several jihadist terrorist attacks. After the director of the kindergarten, together with another adult woman, discovered that the child was wearing this T-shirt, he notified the relevant authorities, and Z.B. and his sister (Jihad’s mother) were charged with glorifying terrorism. The T-shirt was worn only once, and only two people saw the text on it.

The question for the focus group was:

Is this a glorification of terrorism that should be prosecuted or simply a tasteless T-shirt?

Click the button to find out the actual verdict:

Verdict

Verdict summaries

In short, Mike Ward was found not guilty of discrimination by the Supreme Court of Canada and Z.B. was found guilty of glorifying terrorism.

What was interesting about the discussion in the focus group was that the majority of the participants found the humour in both cases to be in very poor taste and to have crossed a line. However, most of the participants also felt that the legal sanctions went too far. At most, the guilty parties should have been “told off” or received “a slap on the wrist.” A prosecution, they claimed, was taking things too far. It will be interesting to see whether similar opinions are shared by other focus groups from different demographics, regions, and countries.

Thanks for making it to the end of this post! In a few months, we’ll share more insights into how Europeans think about humour. If you want to be kept up to date about this and other research results, hit the subscribe button.

A new resource for stand-up comedy research

DELIAH is pleased to announce the launch of a research database documenting over 500 female and non-cisgender comedians active in the Anglophone world during the 21st century. Developed under Work Package 7, it is part of a broader research project that examines how these performers have reshaped stand-up comedy, fostering new forms of societal critique, self-reflection, and alternative speech.

The database is designed primarily for researchers working on stand-up comedy and humour studies as well as industry professionals seeking comparative data in relation to gender, representation, platforms, and cultural context. It allows users to filter entries by specific criteria to uncover connections and trends. Looking for an Australian gender-nonconforming comedian with full-length specials that isn’t Hannah Gadbsy? Wondering which veteran women comedians are leading the podcast boom? Just filter the tabs to find comparable comedians or your next research subject.

Access and documentation

An explanatory document detailing the project’s scope and methodology is available for download on Zenodo, alongside our earlier working bibliography of stand-up comedy scholarship that compliments the database.

Due to the sensitive nature of the data collected, access is granted upon request to ensure responsible use. If you are interested, please email DELIAH coordinator Andrew Bricker at Andrew.Bricker@UGent.be with your request and a brief motivation outlining the intended use.

DELIAH will be taking part in the OppAttune Forum in Sarajevo, hosted by PRONI, which brings together researchers and practitioners from across Europe and several post-conflict contexts to discuss strategies for countering “everyday extremism,” understood as the normalization of hostile political discourse and dehumanizing narratives in democratic societies. The event aims to produce a set of recommendations for strengthening democratic resilience and political literacy.

At the forum, DELIAH Academic Coordinator Andrew Bricker will be taking part on a panel dedicated to “Common Agendas: community-led counter strategies against political extremism and hybrid threats.” His contribution, “Humour, Counter-Humour, and Democratic Participation,” will focus on how DELIAH’s research and interventions around humour can help build political literacy, strengthen local agency, and develop cultural tools that communities can use to counter anti-democratic forms of humour.

The OppAttune project has been working for the last three years on tracking, understanding, and developing interventions to counter everyday extremism across fifteen European countries and beyond.

At the meeting in Sarajevo, OppAttune will establish a dialogue between all participants to create recommendations using OppAttune’s toolkits, concepts and dialogical methods and the professional experiences and best practice of colleagues from a variety of post-conflict contexts.

What kind of Democrat are you?

Take the interactive test that OppAttune has developed:

A new report on the situation of threatened press cartoonists around the world has been puhlish, and is available for download. It is the result of a joint effort by Cartooning for Peace, Cartoonists Rights and their partners: Freedom Cartoonists Foundation, ForHum, Columbia Global Freedom of Expression, and Reporters Without Borders. In a context marked by the rise of authoritarianism, the cases documented in the report cast a stark light on the state of democracy worldwide.

Download full report

The report also includes the findings of unprecedented research on the online experiences of press cartoonists, conducted by DELIAH member and ForHum co-founder Alberto Godioli (University of Groningen) and Ana Pedrazzini (IPEHCS, National University of Comahue). The data revealed raise alarm about a worrying level of online censorship and threats, which often go under the radar, while at the same time press cartoonists are seeing their positions within newsrooms increasingly diminish. There is an urgent need to strengthen mobilization in support of press cartoonists and their profession.

The complete report on the Cartoonists Online survey (by Ana Pedrazzini and Alberto Godioli), instead, is available here.

As part of the 18th Spanish Congress of Political Science and Public Administration, this panel will explore the role of cultural and entertainment practices in political life. More specifically, ‘cultural and entertainment practices’ refer to activities related to the arts and creative industries, such as theatre, cinema, music, photography, literature, television and radio programmes, video games, and less formalised activities such as urban art.

Participants will address the political dimension of these practices from empirical and normative perspectives, as well as examine their broader cultural significance. The panel will be chaired by two DELIAH members: Carmelo Moreno and Marcos Engelken-Jorge.

The congress will take place in Granada, Spain, from 9 to 11 September 2026. The deadline for submitting paper proposals is 31 March 2026.

Useful links:

Congress website (in Spanish)

Information about the panel (in Spanish)

Info for participants (in Spanish)

Key dates (in Spanish)