Abstract This article highlights a fascinating legal wrestling match over the legal limits of free speech through humorous artistic works in the late eighteenth century – just before freedom of speech became a constitutional right. It concerned the parodic item “Reports from Babel” in an issue of the anonymous Dutch journal Ismaël from 15 September 1788. The city of Utrecht and specific authorities were allegedly targeted who in turn prosecuted the local sellers of these perceived libels, Gijsbert Timon van Paddenburg and Justus Visch. The controversy is studied through the political-historical background of the Orangists, who had been returned to power following a turbulent period. The arguments of the court and the parties involved are analysed, as well as the reception of the Roman law of iniuria – specifically regarding libels. Literary and philosophical-linguistic theories are employed to gain insight into the way this particular parody as a form of free speech was perceived as dangerous to late-eighteenth-century society. We show that these defendants exploited the ambiguity of parodic language as part of their defense strategy. Nonetheless, the judicial authorities dismissed these language-based arguments, ultimately condemning the two booksellers with the considerable fine of 1000 guilders. This legal-historical discussion of humorous artistic works, such as Ismaël , highlights the complex relationship between libel laws and free speech.