Why Insulting Brigitte Macron Online Can Mean Prison Time in France
Ten Frenchmen were given fines, jail time, and social media bans for accusing their first lady of being a pedophilic gay man.
In the United States, poking fun at politicians online is a birthright. In France, it could land you in jail.
On Monday, a French court found 10 people guilty of cyberbullying France's first lady, Brigitte Macron. The defendants' "crime" was falsely claiming on X that the first lady was born male and characterizing her relationship with French President Emmanuel Macron as pedophilic. (The French president met his wife when he was about 16 years old and she was a 39-year-old drama teacher at his high school.)
Defendants denied the charges against them by "saying their posts were either meant in jest or constituted legitimate debate," reports The New York Times. Unfortunately for them, this argument rang hollow for the court, which handed out a variety of punishments. These included compulsory cyberbullying awareness training, eight suspended prison sentences, one six-month sentence to be served from home, and a six-month social media ban for five of the defendants. The defendants were also fined 600 euros (roughly $700) each and were ordered "to contribute to a total of 10,000 euros—about $12,000—in compensation" to the first lady, reports the Times.
While the thought of someone facing fines and jail time for a social media post may seem strange to Americans (although it does sometimes happen), French constitutional law is much more permissive of speech restrictions than its American counterpart.
The French Constitution holds that "any citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely." However, unlike the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it immediately caveats this right by excluding "what is tantamount to the abuse of this liberty in the cases determined by Law."
This carveout has allowed the French government to outlaw speech acts like bullying, which it defines as "the act of bullying a person through repeated comments or behavior whose purpose or effect is to degrade their quality of life, leading to an alteration in their physical or mental well-being." Cyberbullying is defined as bullying through an electronic medium. Both are punishable by up to two years' imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 euros (nearly $35,000).
Based on the punishment they could have received, the defendants in the Macron case got off practically scot-free. But that doesn't mean that we should praise the French court for its graciousness. Comparing French and American law reveals just how unlucky the French are when it comes to their free speech rights.
Ari Cohn, a lawyer with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, tells Reason that, while there are laws in the U.S. against cyber harassment, they have been interpreted narrowly by courts to comply with the First Amendment.
In People v. Relerford (2018), the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the portion of the state's cyberstalking statute that criminalized nonconsensual communications that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress because "it was not limited to unprotected threats or other criminal conduct, but instead criminalized entirely protected speech that merely deeply offended or upset others," explains Cohn. Similarly, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld federal cyberstalking law in United States v. Yung (2022) by interpreting "'harass' to mean 'a course of conduct designed to distress the victim by threatening, intimidating, or the like,'" according to Cohn.
If the Macron case had occurred in the U.S., the first lady likely wouldn't have even had enough legal standing to have her complaint heard by a jury. But the case didn't happen in the U.S., it happened in France, where the country's illiberal speech laws led to prison sentences for insulting the president's wife, a fact that Cohn calls "breathtaking lunacy."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Fuck Joe Biden.
While I'm at it, fuck Brigitte Macron and her Michael Jackson nose job too.
Not a handsome woman.
And the colored girls go
Doo, doo-doo, doo-doo, doo-doo-doo
Doo, doo-doo, doo-doo, doo-doo-doo
Doo, doo-doo, doo-doo, doo-doo-doo
Doo, doo-doo, doo-doo, doo-doo-doo
Fuck that old bitch.
Nope. Not even with your dick.
Me neither, I was going to use Brigitte's.
Funny, Reason supported this sort of thing during the Biden administration.
citations?
Something, something about weeks and weeks of but, but, but Merrr 'Private Companies'.
Only to have to acknowledge later, for a day anyways, it was Biden's W.H. and [D]emon-craps in congress sending out censorship demands.
Now that there are weeks and weeks of Carr stating a public opinion that private companies should moderate better ... there isn't acknowledgement of Merr 'Private Companies' anywhere to be found.
This is why George Washington warned against foreign entanglements.
I thought that was Ben Franklin. With all the wigs it's hard to tell, amiright? [elbow nudge]
I thought it was Q Adams who was a whig?
Did these laws apply to those attacking the late Ms. Bardot?
Men call Brigitte Macron a gay pedophile, men get arrested.
Women call Gérard Depardieu a rapist, man gets arrested... repeatedly... until he's convicted on lesser charges.
Liberté, égalité,
fraternitésororité (ou la mort)!In the United States, poking fun at politicians online is a birthright.
I'm not 100% sure about France, but in the US, the First Partner is (nominally anyway) a public personality, not a political figure. No matter what planet they are from.
But posting memes is not.
Owens is a lunatic, but I might agree with her on Macron.
She look-a like a man.
Not seeing it myself. She's no great beauty, but not particularly masculine in appearance. But it doesn't matter and I don't care. Saying mean things shouldn't be illegal.
She's no great beauty, but not particularly masculine in appearance.
With the big, flat cheeks, nasal ridge, and eye sockets and the protruding mandibles or upper pallet she looks more like a chimpanzee or an orangutan in a wig, straight off the set of planet of the apes, to me.
In that vein, she's shorter and speaks in a higher pitch, so, female. The fact that below the neck she's a walking skeleton isn't doing her any favors either.
AUX BARRICADES!
(but be sure to wear your hard hat, gloves, safety vest, and follow the instructions from the police)
Isn't anything that can't possibly be true be considered parody or comedy? Imposing jail time means ______.
So does it have a penis or not?
Nevermind I don’t care.
Who made the quote on how "the shadow of fascism is always falling on the US yet always lands in Europe"?
"When fascism comes to America they'll call it anti fascism". And indeed they do.
"While the thought of someone facing fines and jail time for a social media post may seem strange to Americans (although it does sometimes happen)"
Don't bother clicking the link. It's not about Douglass Mackey. In Reason world talking shit about Macron is A Okay. Hilary Clinton on the other hand not so much.
Where did they say it was ok for one and not the other? Ya that's what I thought. Bias much
You're not fooling anyone retard.
So far, both Douglass Mackey and these Frenchmen have about another 25 articles to go at Reason before anyone would begin to think they the stack up to the injustice Priscilla Villarreal faced in jail for a couple of hours in Texas.
This is the kind of thing we should point to whenever someone starts mouthing off about how the United States needs to mimic Europe.
Of course, those kinds of idiots really do think we can just pick and choose which horribly anti-constitutional nonsense we can allow, as if it isn't all a slippery slope to the same destination.
You mean like following their vaccine policy and schedule?
Considering that the European nations themselves are each different from each other, yes, we can 'pick and choose'. For example it is not inevitable that any nation that has a parliament will end up like France.
So, what's the exchange rate of 10 Frenchmen in Americans?
"law is much more permissive of speech restrictions"
Are we coming, here, or going?
In the France of 1776 these people would have been invited to have grass before breakfast or clean their necks for the sword. In any case, the French constitution and the First Amendment don't actually compel anyone to say stupid, pointless things about public (or private) figures. All this proves is that there's never a shortage of assholes, in France and everywhere else.
While I don't know if Brigitte Macron was born male or female, it is well documented that she was a pedophile as Emmanuel Macron was only 15 years old when she as a 45 year old married woman.
Frankly it is disgusting that just because they were eventually married. Should pedophiles be excused if they successfully persuade the minor to marry them?
The French Law (based on Napoleonic code) obviously provides less freedom and protect elites even more than those based on English Common Law.
True justice would see Brigitte Macron sitting in jail for pedophilia. The 10 people convicted should have their convictions modified to remove any punishment for calling Brigitte Macron a pedophile because it is a proven, confirmed and acknowledged fact that she is a pedophile adulteress.
Like I mentioned, her gender at birth and her being a pedophile are two separate and distinct things. These 10 people should not be convicted for telling the truth that Brigitte Macron was pedophile.
I'm very glad about the current U.S. law on free speech, but it's worth recalling that it wasn't always this way. During World War I the Supreme Court blessed jailing anti-war pamphleteers. The Constitution hasn't changed since then, but judicial thinking has.
The basic current U.S. approach -- that only a few enumerated categories of speech are unprotected, that the categories must have reasonably objective criteria (e.g. "obscenity" is what "appeals to the prurient interest and lacks literary/artistic value"), and that new categories must hardly ever be added -- is on balance the right one.