Misunderstood satire. From «Charlie Hebdo» in France to «María Maricón» in Peru: freedom of expression, social criticism and religion

Abstract

This article analyzes satire as a form of social and religious critique, comparing the emblematic cases of «Charlie Hebdo» in France and «María Maricón» in Peru, despite the temporal and geographical distances between them. It examines how satire, with roots in Greco-Roman antiquity and consolidated as a fundamental right after the French Revolution, acts as a tool of free expression that challenges the ideal models imposed by the community and those in power. Through a comparative analysis of both cases, it demonstrates that the tension generated by satire functions as a social catalyst. Far from being merely destructive, this practice acts as a dialectical tool that, by questioning dogma, renews religious fervor and strengthens the practice of tolerance. With a hermeneutic, sociological, and historical approach, the study argues that satire should not be interpreted solely as an attack on the sacred, but rather as a corrective mechanism that exposes the inconsistencies between prevailing norms and reality. The research concludes that satire is an essential component of democratic pluralism. By confronting the established order, this practice not only challenges power but also stimulates collective reflection, benefiting the community by fostering critical debate. Therefore, it is argued that the State must guarantee the exercise of satire as an indispensable manifestation of freedom of expression, thereby protecting the development of more open, flexible societies capable of coexisting with the constant critique of their own convictions.