Verbal stoning

The judge wrote that the montage was criticism of a performance, without sliding into personal offence, and that it gave no encouragement to the "verbal stoning" of the duo. She also set humour apart from journalism: humour has more freedom to bend reality. At a newspaper, the ruling was underlined in every colour and then vanished. Nine people and a ruling, one per row and one per column. Nothing is handed to you on a plate: you'll need more than one hypothesis to get to the end.

Suspects

• Aldina, the legal affairs editor: She underlined the ruling in yellow. She says yellow is for what goes in the headline.
• Bento, the arts editor: He underlined the bit about humour in green. He says a court has finally understood what he's been writing for twenty years.
• Custódia, the proofreader: She underlined two commas in red. She says the ruling is well written, but not perfect.
• Dimas, the layout designer: He has to fit the ruling onto one page. He's already taken out Custódia's commas.
• Evangelina, the intern: She wrote seven headlines with "verbal stoning". None was chosen, but all were shared in the group chat.
• Florentino, the opinion columnist: He wrote one column for and one against, so they could choose. They chose both.
• Gabriela, the video presenter: She read an excerpt of the ruling live. She tripped over "causation" and had to start again.
• Herculano, the archivist: He's kept every newspaper since 1974. He says he's never kept a ruling so underlined.
• Inês, the receptionist: Readers rang to ask whether you can now make fun of anything. She said it depended.