The revolt of the trombudos

The Anjos lawsuit against Joana Marques is ridiculous. So absolutely ridiculous that it could have no importance. But it is also a threat. And, as a threat, it deserves to be answered clearly.

The first thing that surprised me was that the complaint was admitted and brought to trial. Given the evidence that has been made public, it clearly does not deserve this. This is a process that reeks of opportunism. It serves a cunning country boy to try to enrich himself at the expense of others. In recent decades, this is one of the most violent attempts at censorship that I have seen, because it seeks revenge and intimidation. It is an old technique used by lawyers (I am one too) to avoid criminal proceedings for defamation or other forms of offence to honour or good name, resorting to civil proceedings for compensation to present huge claims. What is better? A sentence of six months in prison (with a suspended sentence) or millions in compensation? The lawyers made the Angels ' eyes shine, and offered them a sacrificial lamb: Joana Marques would pay for all those who vented their fury or mockery on social media for the musical misunderstanding and out of tune. Therefore, there is only one justification for this judgment: the court must contribute, in a concise manner, to establishing case law that is accepted and respected, protecting fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. This is a hope.

I didn't know the Angels . When I heard them mentioned in this case, I confused them with another group. Only recently, when I followed the news, which became more intense, did I see that I was wrong. I felt comforted: I didn't believe that the other group, which I admire, was capable of this. I was right: they were not, in fact, capable of such scoundrels.

I don't know Joana Marques either. I know who she is, but I don't know her. I've been following her success. I admire her joy, energy and sense of humour. You can see that she's a person who's very comfortable with herself. But, to my own fault, I can't follow many of the things I'd like to, like her programmes. She radiates grace and good humour. Despite what people say about her, she wouldn't even be able to play a witch in the theatre. If she did, we'd all start laughing before she'd say a single word.

I didn't know the facts of the accusation, which justified the terrorist request against Joana Marques, and I didn't remember in detail what had happened when the case began. I had to read the news that came out and review the records of the past that had happened on the internet. I went to retrieve videos of the events. There I experienced the censorship that was already taking hold: several videos that had been posted on the X network criticizing the performance of the Anjos were, in the meantime, deleted, while the trial was underway. As a precaution, I downloaded some. I even watched some that, later, disappeared. The indication from the X operator is this: This media has been disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner. The reality is obvious and shows its face. So, let's get to the point.

In April 2022, in Portimão, on the day of MotoGP, the most important motorcycle racing competition in the world, the Angels were hired to sing the Portuguese national anthem. They sing and… they go out of tune. Bad luck. They go out of tune in style. It can happen to anyone. It always happens to me. It happened to them that time. MotoGP was broadcast live and… the Angels went out of tune too.

It was such a notorious – and painful thing… – that spontaneous people quickly circulated the recording of that performance , in its raw form, as broadcast live, on social media. The indignant circulation was, as usual, accompanied by mocking or more severe comments. Some even called for the Angels to be subject, either ironically or seriously, to Article 332 of the Penal Code for insulting national symbols. And the most attentive internet users also noticed – and pointed out – that the Angels not only sang out of tune, but also got the words wrong: instead of “eminent grandparents”, they sang “churches”, that is, as is well known, the husbands of the churches; and, immediately afterwards, they changed “que há de” to “que há de”, making the grandparents one, although it was not known whether it was the grandfather or the grandmother.

Following suit, Joana Marques made a humorous video edit , interspersing excerpts from the disastrous performance by the Angels in Portimão with images of the judges of “Ídolos” – one of those TV talent competitions –, showing perplexed faces. Contrary to what the complainants and lawyers say, it is a lie that this video distorted the interpretation of the anthem. It is shown as it was, only adding, in an obvious montage, the expressions of displeasure of the judges. Joana Marques’ video is clearly funny. It is objectively a good find of humor, much lighter than the flood of protests, criticisms and insults directly provoked by the unfortunate interpretation of the anthem by the Angels.

The lawsuit therefore shows the plaintiffs' enormous weakness, revealing an unacceptable hypersensitivity to criticism, whether they allege acne outbreaks or strokes, nighttime tremors or dandruff attacks. Anyone who wants to make a public life in any area – in theater or cinema, in the arts, playing music or singing, in the media, in comedy, in sports or in politics – must be able to accept criticism, whether fair or unfair. By performing in public, the Angels fall within the scope of the phrase that has become a classic in American politics: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

In this case, the criticism was obviously fair and timely – but it could even be unfair. Accepting criticism does not mean agreeing with it, but accepting that it exists – criticism is the public's right, an indelible right of the public. Here, Joana Marques is only and above all the public. The Angels act in this process as the face of censorship, tyrants playing the victim, in the typical attitude of killing the messenger: the evil is not in their being out of tune, the evil is in telling them that they were out of tune.

Let us conclude with two fundamental points . The first to bear in mind is that humor is a basic and common expression of social criticism. Almost everyone does it, except the grumpy ones – or perhaps the grumpy ones, except when it concerns them.

Almost all of us make and enjoy listening to humorous, impromptu stories about an event or a personality, whether current or from the national or international past. We like to collect jokes, listen to them and reproduce them, sometimes translating typical social representations. The Portuguese people's knack for instantly generating jokes about gaffes, clumsy gestures, failures, stumbles, mistakes in expression, exaggerations, or anything that excites the national humorous imagination, exposing its laughable or ridiculous side, is much praised, talked about and applauded. Today, with social networks, the manifestations of this national talent quickly make several turns in the pool table.

This is so natural, so deep-rooted and so ancient that, if I am not mistaken, it was in Roman Law classes that I first heard the corresponding Latin maxim: ridendo castigat mores, that is, “by laughing one punishes customs”. Humour, laughter, is an instrument of social education, as we would say today, a “free, participatory and inclusive” instrument of social education. In other words: no one escapes it; we all do it; and it is an expression of each person’s freedom – the freedom to look and the freedom to think. It is a way of, through public reprimands, through the normal effect of criticism, leading to the correction of behaviours or actions or the prevention of their occurrence.

The second point to bear in mind is humor as freedom of expression and part of this fundamental right. I will quote a phrase I heard on television a few days ago from Carlos Magno, which I immediately considered to be apt: “freedom of expression is the expression of freedom”. A phrase that helps us intuitively understand that the limits to freedom of expression (which exist, no one doubts) must be very strict, firmly rooted in social conscience, very rare and extremely limited. From this perspective, humor – which is a form of expression and one of the most sublime – cannot be subject to stricter limits than those of freedom of expression.

If a singer makes a mistake on stage, isn't it normal to hear boos or get kicked? If a singer sings out of tune during a show broadcast on television, isn't it normal to hear criticism, whistles and mockery? Isn't that what normally happens? And what should the singer do? He should accept the reactions he provoked. Accept that it was a bad day. Move on. Make peace with the audience. The fault is not the audience's in rejecting the mistake; the fault is the mistake, whether through misfortune, clumsiness or misperception. Even Angels are not perfect. They have to be patient.

Humor is a sign of good health. A sign of good personal and social health. A sign of very good health. Don't ruin it. Don't build an intimidated society. We must not fuel a society of authoritarianism, of cancellation, of total surveillance, of the rectorship of details. We don't want a society that is angry and fearful, envious and talentless, crouched and restless. Justice exists to protect us.