Humor, racismo e linguagem jurídica: análise pragmática do caso "Cãodomblé" e de suas repercussões jurídicas

Abstract

This article examines the satirical episode “Cãodomblé,” aired by the television program Sensacionalista (Multishow), and the subsequent legal rulings associated with it, through the lens of Speech Act Theory (AUSTIN, 1990) and Impoliteness Theory (CULPEPER, 2011). These frameworks are articulated with the concepts of recreational and religious racism, as well as with prevailing stereotypes about Black populations and their cultural practices (MOREIRA, 2023; NOGUEIRA, 2023). The investigation demonstrates that the satire employs a range of linguistic strategies to construct implicit meanings, insinuations, and sarcasm – such as attacks on social identity face and on equity rights, and forms of both conventionalized and implicational impoliteness. These strategies operate simultaneously as entertainment impoliteness, coercive impoliteness, and institutional impoliteness. In doing so, they generate speech acts whose perlocutionary effects diverge sharply from the purportedly humorous illocutionary intent, ultimately producing collective humiliation and reinforcing racial hierarchies by targeting a historically marginalized group. The analysis of the legal decisions connected to the case suggests that incorporating categories from linguistic pragmatics and sociology can strengthen the rigor and legitimacy of judicial reasoning in cases where discriminatory practices are masked as humor, particularly when they affect historically subjugated populations.