Purpose The purpose of this paper is to critically examine how legal frameworks under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Digital Services Act address satirical content. It seeks to assess the adequacy of current protections afforded to satire, particularly in digital environments where its form and reach have evolved. The article aims to identify legal tensions between freedom of expression and other fundamental rights, offering insights into whether the evolving European Union (EU) regulatory landscape fosters or hinders the protection of satire as a form of democratic critique. Design/methodology/approach This article adopts a doctrinal legal research methodology, focusing on jurisprudential analysis and regulatory interpretation. It reviews relevant case law from the European Court of Human Rights and assesses the legal standards established under Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) concerning satire. The study also conducts a normative and comparative analysis of the Digital Services Act, particularly its provisions on content moderation, to determine their potential implications for satirical expression in digital spaces. The approach integrates legal reasoning with theoretical considerations on freedom of expression and regulatory proportionality. Findings The article finds that while the European Court of Human Rights has established strong protections for satire under Article 10 ECHR, emerging regulatory frameworks like the Digital Services Act may introduce content moderation obligations that risk undermining such protections. The tension lies in automated moderation systems that may fail to recognise context or intent, potentially chilling legitimate satirical expression. The research highlights the need for interpretive safeguards and transparency obligations to ensure that satire remains protected in both traditional and digital media under EU law. Research limitations/implications The article is limited by its primary reliance on existing legal texts and jurisprudence without empirical testing of platform-level moderation outcomes. It focuses on the European legal context, particularly the EU and the European Court of Human Rights, which may limit its applicability in non-European jurisdictions. The implications suggest a need for future empirical and comparative research into how satire is treated across different regulatory environments and how automated content moderation systems practically affect the dissemination of satirical content online. Practical implications This article provides legal practitioners, platform regulators and policymakers with guidance on how to interpret and apply freedom of expression protections to satirical content, particularly in digital environments. It highlights potential legal pitfalls in automated content moderation and underscores the need for human rights-based approaches in regulatory implementation. The findings advocate for proportionality, transparency and intent-based assessments in content removal decisions to protect legitimate satire under Article 10 ECHR while complying with the Digital Services Act (DSA)’s obligations. Social implications By emphasising the importance of satire in democratic discourse, this article contributes to broader discussions on media freedom, civic engagement and political accountability. It underscores how overly broad content moderation or regulatory uncertainty can suppress satirical commentary, diminishing public debate. The research encourages greater awareness of how regulatory mechanisms influence expressive freedoms, especially for marginalised voices and independent media relying on satire as a form of critique or resistance in online environments. Originality/value This article offers an original synthesis of the legal status of satire under the ECHR and the DSA, filling a critical gap in academic and policy discussions on digital expression. Its focus on the intersection between legal reasoning and platform governance provides novel insights into the treatment of memes and satirical content. By proposing a nuanced legal interpretation that accommodates the evolving nature of satire in digital media, the article adds value to ongoing debates on content regulation and freedom of expression in Europe.
Cédric Tuyau (Fri,) studied this question.