Free Speech

French Prosecution of Marine Le Pen for Tweeting Islamic State Execution Images

The charges -- for "distribution of violent images" -- could lead to up to three years in prison and a $90,000 fine.


The AP reports:

Le Pen's December 2015 tweets showed executions by IS extremists, including the killing of American reporter James Foley. She posted them in the wake of the November 2015 IS attacks on Paris, accusing the government of not doing enough to protect France.

NEXT: Thoughts on the New Constitutional Case Against Obamacare

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This partnership between Reason and Volokh Conspiracy is already improving the content by leaps and bounds!

    1. Do you think Prof. Volokh would have hesitated to print this at the Post?

      1. He means Reason’s content [smiley face]

        1. Hehe, well I’m at Reason now, so who am I to argue?

          1. Assuming you’re ‘murican, it’s your god given right, nay your duty, to complain.

          2. Hard to tell if that was sarcasm or not! 😉

            1. Surely the initial remark was sarcastic, as one can hardly call the introduction of Volokh’s brand of conservative legal rhetoric into this website an “improvement.” As I have shown elsewhere, Volokh’s efforts are actually quite symptomatic of a general decline in standards on American campuses, especially when it comes to hit-and-run scholarship and a casual refusal to address opposing arguments made by other members of the academic and legal communities who disagree with the limitations he is content to see imposed on the reach of the First Amendment. He is naturally admired by many ignorant readers, but that too is merely a symptom of the times.

  2. Again? IIRC she was tried, and acquitted, of thought-crime a couple of years ago. It’s too bad that Europe doesn’t have freedom of speech.

    1. They do. You’re welcome to say anything you like as long as it’s what the majority agrees with.

      1. Here in America we have very stringent protections, except for inappropriately deadpan satire of certain well-connected members of the academic community. See for example:

  3. I really need to start keeping a list of these European Idiocies, so that the next time a so-called “liberal” (i.e., an authoritarian statist who refers to him or herself as “liberal”, even though his or her political philosophy and willingness to trust government with more power is the polar opposite of true liberalism) claims that America ought to be more like Europe, I can throw that list in their face.

    1. Well, if someone says, “America ought to be like Europe, in every single aspect, bar none!”, then your response will be an effective counter. If not, it’s sort of pointless, since 99.99674% of people use the expression to mean, “America ought–generally–to be more like Europe.”, or “America ought to be more like Europe in the area(s) that we were just discussing.”

      If you say to someone, in the middle of a discussion about political corruption and also about free speech, “I wish Sudan and South Sudan were more like America.”, it would be similarly pointless for me to smugly whip out statistics about our overwhelming number of obese adults and morbidly obese children.” It’s an accurate statistic, it’s an inherently alarming numbers of fatties. But totally off-point from what we were actually talking about.

      You seem like a person who is fairly conversant and I trust that most of the people you know are similarly conversant. The fact that most (all??) European countries have nothing approaching our freedom of speech protections is fairly well-known. I mean; some countries have an official religion, for God’s sake! [no pun intended]

      1. I’m reminded of Bill Mahar’s “Real Time” during the Bush presidency where he and his guests would fawn over Europe like it was the pinnacle of enlightenment in everything they do.

      2. “America ought to be like Europe, in every single aspect, bar none!”,

        Liberals constantly bring up Europe as better on health care, social programs, paid leave and just about everything.

        Just about.

        They never discuss free speech and abortion as models. Funny that.

        1. ‘just about everything’ is quite a leap, especially since you provide counterexample like the very next sentence!!

          I’d also add race relations to that second list.

          1. Well, the fun thing about collectivism is that you get to argue about who is part of the collective.

            1. idgi.

              And collectivist is excluding a pretty large continuum.

        2. What Sarcasto said. In every conversation I’ve had with liberals on these topics, they talk about many European countries (but not all) having far superior health care and much better safety nets for their poorest citizens, far better paid leave, etc. They also talk about the inferior protections for speech, the lack of access for guns for personal protection, and other weaknesses in EU countries. Is it possible that I hang around with people who have an objective and nuanced view towards life, and you hang around with people who see things as all-or-nothing?

          Assuming that you are accurately reporting your encounters with liberals; it’s interesting to note the vastly different experiences you and I have had, when talking with liberals. (Given that; I expect that my conversations with conservatives and your conversations with conservatives are–in similar ways–vastly different.) 🙂

          1. Wait, you hang around liberals who think the US has better gun laws than Europe?

            1. Sure. Me, for one. Of all my friends in law school, Eugene was the only non-liberal…well, some were libertarian on the liberal end of the spectrum. Pretty much everyone I met owned at least one gun. And in the quarter-century since law school, very very few of the liberals I have met would deny a right to own a gun for self-defense. I’ve met lots who are against concealed carry. Lots who would be fine with limiting the number of guns that one person can own, pretty much all of them against assault weapons. But owning a gun for self-defense? In your own home? That’s actually pretty non-controversial nowadays . . . one area where gun-rights advocates simply won the argument and brought the vast majority of the country over to their view.

              1. There’s no such thing as an assault weapon. If you oppose them, you oppose all firearms.

          2. ” Is it possible that I hang around with people who have an objective and nuanced view towards life”

            “pretty much all of them against assault weapons”

            Well, you answered your own question in the negative a few minutes later.

        3. But it is not a contradiction to say, on the one hand, that we would do well to emulate Europe’s social safety net, while at the same time say that on other issues — like free speech — America has the better policy. No nation is wrong all the time, or right all the time.

          1. I absolutely agree with you. I was just pointing out that Bob’s comment (that liberals think that Europe is better on “just about everything”) is obviously deluded and false. He was making a (crazy) point that is very different from your (sensible and obvious-to-me) point. 🙂

        4. You should have included cheese-eating surrender monkeys for the first part of your list (but if the Europeans like to free ride off of the U.S. for their security and the U.S. follows their example, who are we going to free-ride off of? Certainly not Russia because Trump(!), so China perhaps?)

          But American progressives don’t like France for one of its most enlightened policies: no affirmative action and no official racial bean counting.

          1. Yeah, you can see how enlightened France’s policy is by their results! Who wouldn’t want generational ghettos, and the frequency and intensity of the riots they have!

            As for Europe’s military spending, those are agreements we made with them in order to better project power during the Cold War. Maybe we should change our power projection, but blaming Europe is just dumb negative American Exceptionalism.

            That being said, that is one of the best Simpsons quotes ever.

            1. Soon after the Simpsons quote became popular, someone disparaged a new pacifist group in Ohio as “Velveeta-eating surrender monkeys.”

            2. As if the U.S. does not have ethnic ghettos, race riots, BLM protests, and intersectional grievance mongering even after decades of innumerable, interminable “race-conscious” policies (Justice O’Connor’s 25 year egg timer is down to 10 years). Vive la France!

              NATO was supposed to be an alliance and the fact that the Europeans can’t even manage to spend the bare minimum on their defense and manages to get away with it is a testament to their skill at being free-riders (how about imposing a “tax penalty” on them), but if we are supposed to ape their practice and have a big European nanny state, we must find a sucker to protect us in exchange for “power projection.”

              1. Good lord – no one thinks the US has no problems with race. But France has it much, much worse. Worse ghettos, worse riots. They don’t even bother to protest, they feel so disenfranchised.

                I also don’t think you understand the history of NATO. Or even read my comment about who encouraged Europe to rely on us. (Hint: it was America!)

              2. Good lord – no one thinks the US has no problems with race. But France has it much, much worse. Worse ghettos, worse riots. They don’t even bother to protest, they feel so disenfranchised.

                I also don’t think you understand the history of NATO. Or even read my comment about who encouraged Europe to rely on us. (Hint: it was America!)

                1. The U.S. has been better at assimilating immigrants than France not because of its affirmative action policies but in spite of them.

                  Europe was supposed to allow America to take the lead, but they were supposed to do their fair (if lesser) share. The Romans were much more effective in extracting tribute to support Pax Romana than the U.S. has been in supporting Pax Americana.

            3. “Yeah, you can see how enlightened France’s policy is by their results! Who wouldn’t want generational ghettos, and the frequency and intensity of the riots they have!”

              Sure. Immigrants don’t come to the US and build businesses, they come to the US to…get preferentially selected for jobs?

              France’s problem is that the labor market is too rigid. This has to be the first time I’ve heard anybody suggest that their labor market is too free.

              1. France not addressing it’s institutional racism is a problem. So is it’s lack of class mobility. Both things can be true; labor policy is not a two-dimensional continuum.

                1. Meh. The US has had loads of success with immigration despite plenty of institutional racism, cuz free markets. The French, not so much.

                  1. Not just free markets, though.

                    In America, you can be an American and look all sorts of different ways. In France (and Europe generally) True Frenchmen look a particular way, sound a particular way, dress a particular way…

                    The idea that all it takes is free markets to solve racial problems ignores a long and worldwide history of anti-economic tribal behavior. America is exceptional partially because it’s done a better job of grappling with that aspect of our history and nature.
                    We have a ways to go, but at least we’re not France!

                    1. “In France (and Europe generally) True Frenchmen look a particular way, sound a particular way, dress a particular way…”

                      Yup. And the more you have regulations that create a surplus of labor, the more that that matters. In France, even a part time job is very difficult to get. Employers can afford to be picky. And one of the ways that they are picky is that they exclude foreigners.

                    2. Look at American or European history. A pinched sense of national identity will trump needing to expand the labor supply any day. Because humans are tribal first and economic second.

                    3. American history includes lots of laws designed to limit economic competition from minorities and immigrants. The entire French economy is structured around laws limiting competition, especially competition for labor. Racist employers plus labor surplus is a recipe for exclusion.

          2. Oh my God! I’ve heard the “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” insult for years, and never would have guessed that it originated with the Simpsons. I assumed it had been around since circa WWII. (Although, being a perfect cromulent phrase should perhaps have been a tip-off.)

            Reason #1528 why the Simpsons rule!

            1. It was a complete throw-away line from Scotch Willie in a brief scene of him as a substitute French teacher. And now it is a cultural phenomenon.

              1. Call a Scot “Scotch” to his or her face and count how many teeth you have left.

                1. I see you Scotsmen are thrifty with courage as well

      3. It’s hard to tell in some cases whether the person who expresses such a sentiment thinks all those aspects of Europeanism go together or not. Same with the person giving the retort.

        I’m more interested in whether certain aspects of public policy and/or sociology actually go together in some causal sense, i.e. one being the cause of another or several having a common cause. Why things are the way they are?the mass psychology?fascinates me. Sometimes I think the tendencies that correlate are due to historic accident, very path-dependent, sometimes I think there’s some philosophy and/or psychology underlaying them.

      4. “America ought to be more like Europe in cherry picked ways because in those and only those ways ‘everyone else is doing it’ is a great argument” is how it really works, as used by such persons, in my experience.

        Which is why people mock it.

    2. The fact that Europe has these speech laws and their welfare state are not unrelated. Any socialistic system in a multiracial society will lead to a de facto distribution of wealth from one race to the other. That causes people to notice. The only way to stop people from talking about it is to make it illegal.

      1. Sorry, but these laws extend at least back to the French Revolution, which had “rights” in the current European sense of “you have the right do do X as long as it doesn’t offend someone/disturb public order”

        Here’s the translation of their free speech entry in the Bill of rights

        “Article X ? No one may be disturbed for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by the law.”

        1. Yes, how dare they put the possibility of time, place, and manner restrictions right there in the text! Don’t they know that you’re supposed to read that in implicitly?

          1. They’re also supposed to ensure that the restrictions are content-neutral.

          2. as 12″ said. That’s not about T/P/M, but content.

  4. Does anyone know the details of the French law, i.e. which violent images are OK and which are not?

    I’m thinking of photos from Omaha Beach, or Verdun, video of the Rodney King verdict or Bull Connor at work, etc. My sense is that most people feel the publication of those is a good thing.

    1. Or pictures from concentration camps, the French revolution, and so on. Le pen is correct, this is a political attempt to silence her.

      1. Billy,
        I don’t disagree with you. But, given that all these anti-free-speech European laws came from legislatures; are not ALL enforcements political attempts to silence? Germany has laws about displaying the swastika (with numerous exceptions for historical, educational, and artistic expression). By definition, we agree that all prosecutions for violating these laws are political, yes?

        1. Literally, yes, in that the law’s origin is political.

          In the Le Pen case, though, does anyone trust that the application of the law is even?

          That is, is it even facially plausible that e.g. a Communist [remember, France has a large and active Communist party, by modern standards] would be prosecuted for “distribution of violent images” for, say, images of the Vietnam War?

          That seems … unlikely, though I’d love to be proven wrong*.

          (* In that I prefer a bad law evenly enforced to a bad law enforced unevenly, if I have to have one of the two; I’d rather a France with principles in the application of stupid penalties to one where the stupid penalties are applied only to those who aren’t bien pensant.)

          1. If enforcement is common, I’d prefer bad law be unevenly enforced, since that may be the only way for many people to have a chance to escape the badness. If enforcement is rare, there’s no way I’d want its enforcement to be evened out, since that would mean it had to be enforced more.

            You may have the idea that bad law will be gotten rid of more quickly if it affects more people. Maybe, but that’s a gamble. I’m afraid too much of the time the misery would just be spread, yet lai on just as thick.

            1. In the case of restrictions on speech, that danger is especially menacing, because the restrictions could become locked in by becoming illegal to criticize. Even a repeal bill could be construed as illegal to write or voice.

    2. Taking Brigitte Bardot’s convictions as a precedent, I’d say anything that upsets the wrong people might be a criminal offence in France.

    3. As usual, vice has a very informative summary, including a link to the relevant law.

      With Google translate:
      “Constitutes an act of complicity in the deliberate violation of the person’s integrity … ….and is punishable by the penalties provided by these articles knowingly record, by any means whatsoever, on any medium whatsoever, images relating to the commission of these offenses.
      Broadcasting the recording of such images is punishable by five years’ imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 euros.
      This section does not apply when the recording or broadcast results from the normal exercise of a profession for the purpose of informing the public or is performed for the purpose of serving as evidence in the courts.”

      1. For what it’s worth, I’ve translated the law myself as well. Google did pretty well, but I’ve added a few notes and cleaned up the language. Notes in [] are mine, not the French government’s. Voila:

        [The recording and dissemination of images of violence] constitutes an act of complicity [trans. note: makes one an accomplice to] in the intentional violation of a person’s [physical] integrity according to articles 222-1 to 222-14-1 [torture and other acts of violence], 222-23 to 222-31 [rape and other sexual crimes], and 222-33 [sexual harassment] and is punishable according to the penalties provided by these articles [by virtue of] the act of knowingly recording, by any means whatsover, on any medium whatsover, images relating the to the commission of these infractions.

        The act of disseminating the recording of such images is punishable by 5 years imprisonment and a fine of 75 000 Euros.

        The present article does not apply the the recording or dissemination results from the normal practice of a profession having the purpose of informing to public, or is committed to serve as proof in court.

        1. So, according to how the law is worded, a teacher teaching a relevant class, should be fine. So should the media. Also, genocide, warfare, riots, civil unrest, violence against animals, , are not covered by the sections of the French penal code referenced here. The intent of the law (which likely is still unconstitutional by American standards) seems more to prohibit things like participating in the making of snuff films or rape porn the equivalent to committing the murder or rape itself, and to criminalize distributing such things.

          I’m surprisingly willing to say that I’m OK with telling people they can’t put videos of someone being raped on youtube or, worse, pornhub (where one can charge for viewing it).

          My problem is that Daesh’s original video and Ms. Le Pen’s use of a still from it were political. Someone compared the FN to Daesh, and Ms. Le Pen’s response was EXTREMELY graphic, but, well, to the point. She doesn’t believe it to be accurate or appropriate to be compared to the organization committing the depicted acts. Personally, I’d have used a strongly worded statement questioning the sanity, sincerity, and mental fitness of the reporter, but that’s me.

          The fact that Le Pen would be the first elected official ever prosecuted under the act does lend it an extra air of stinky “we can’t respond effectively in the court of public opinion so let’s criminalize them instead” mentality common in statist regimes.

          1. How dare you add reason into this feast of American self-congratulation!

      2. Interestingly, the Vice article and the AP article seem to disagree about the facts behind the tweets.

        From Vice”
        “Interviewing political scientist Gilles Kepel for radio station RMC and news channel BFM TV, Bourdin drew parallels between Le Pen’s party and IS, saying the two movements shared an “inward-looking attitude” and “mindset.”

        A furious Le Pen reacted by tweeting images of IS executions under the caption “This is Daesh!” ? an Arabic acronym for IS.”

        From AP:
        “She posted them in the wake of the November 2015 IS attacks on Paris, accusing the government of not doing enough to protect France.”

        1. According to the French media, Vice is more correct. The series of events is that the attacked the government, Bourdin compared the FN to Daesh, and she pulled a Trump.

          See. E.G. : Le Figaro, Le Boursier, L’Internationale, L’Avenir, et al.

  5. Le Pen iz mightieuhr zan le sword.

  6. The described prosecution sounds bad.

    Right-wing bigots should have rights, too.

    1. Hmm. Now Comrade Kirkland is calling someone a bigot because some other people murdered some other different people? If I was trying to make an exaggerated caricature of a snowflake, left wing, double standard loving, liberal I couldn’t even come up with that. Do you realize how bad you make the reasonable people on the left look with your insanity?

      1. Would your caricature resemble Mona Charen . . . maybe Mona Charen being booed by wingnuts for criticizing misogyny and bigotry?

        Carry on, clinger.

      2. Whenever arthur posts its like he’s half way in another dimension talking to someone else about a different topic.

        1. The topics were censorship and Le Pen. You’re whimpering because you prefer to wallow in political correctness (and it’s ugliest part at that) while I call a bigot a bigot (and assert that bigots have rights of expression).

  7. Noooooo socialism doesn’t lead to communism and authoritarianism. It may be the long way around the mountains instead of straight through, but it’s still a good way to end up under an autocrat.

    1. I don’t think economics is why this is Europe’s speech policy…

      1. I think you are a little naive there Sarcastro, it’s a lot harder for the bureaucracy to get control of the lion’s share of the economy without being able to control the debate. Frances government is 55% of the economy. I don’t think it’s just coincidence that the bureaucracy has a lot more control over what people can say, or even name their kids than they can where government is a much smaller slice of the economy.

        It’s not a hard and fast rule, and obviously the more hardass the government is willing to get the more they can control spending less of the economy. China can maintain near absolute control of public debate with 24% of the economy, but they aren’t going to spend much on a trial or keeping you in jail once you get crosswise with them.

        1. Your using a very broad logical supposition to prove your narrative. I could as easily say you need strong government controls on speech and in capitalist countries to prevent people from rising up against the inequitable concentration of wealth. Think Pinochet.

          The history of Europe is one of gradual liberalizing feudalism. The history of America is one of a radical break from feudalism.
          IMO, that differing historical arc explains how America/Europe differ both speech and the level of regulation, but doesn’t require them to be tied together causally in the present day.

          1. To be fair, the current trajectory of American history bends towards feudalism.

            Also, be careful because a lot of these guys like Pinochet.

  8. So, she spoke the truth, but with bad motives and unjustifiable ends (“Islamophobia”)?

    1. Perhaps, but the correct response is more speech and not enabling one of the primary tools of dictators: censorship.

      1. So the correct response to snuff films is more snuff films?

        1. Well, at least more snuff.

  9. A rapper just got 3.5 years in Spain for rap songs against the royal family. All of Europe has a problem with free speech.

    Mallorcan rapper Josep Miquel Arenas Beltr?n, stage name Valtonyc, has been sentenced to three and a half years in prison over the content of his song lyrics.

    Catalan News reports the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that his work, which he made available to listen to online for free, contained glorification of terrorism, slander, ‘l?se-majest?’ (defamation against the crown), and threats. Lawyers defending Valtonyc pushed for their client’s right to freedom of expression and artistic creation, arguing that hip-hop and rap often contain provocative or symbolic language.

    In “Tuerka Rap” the 24-year-old rapper criticises the Spanish monarchy over their relations with the Saudi royal family, their foreign policy, and their spending, as he raps: “The situation worries me quite a bit, how to support two families: mine, and the royal one.”

    1. Try going to Thailand and making fun of the king. Even in a gentle way. Even in a way where it’s clear that you’re just joking. You’ll be in jail so far it’ll make your head spin. And–unless you have serious political connections in your home country–you’ll end up doing serious time. Multiple years. Thais are incredibly friendly. Except re their royal family, where they have zero senses of humor.

      1. It’s a one-year sentence to be bald because it looks too much like Yul Brenner in The King and I. True story.

    2. Defamation against the crown is quite rightly a crime, because the King is denied the right to add his own “more speech” to whatever speech attacks him. If you’re going to deny someone the right to defend himself in public debate, you should defend him in some other way.

      That said, that 3.5 years sentence is insane, and should be overturned in Strasbourg if he thinks to go there.

  10. So, showing Islamic terror in its own images is “hate speech”, do I have that right?

    1. Nope!

      Read the post. It’s very short.

      1. Showing Islamic terror in its own images is “hate speech” — if you’re also advancing views that disagree with progressive cultural marxists?

        Thanks for the clarification.

        1. Who is bringing up hate speech other than you and GFJ?

          I also like how many epithets are stacking up on the bad guys. I’m hoping for a crypto- something next!

          1. Oh, ok. Replace with criminally punishable speech. This is outrageous, and here in the U.S. certain private actors have the exact same sort of attitude with YouTube, Twitter, et al targeting even mainstream conservative viewpoints for mass purging and censorship. Entirely different as a legal matter, but the same censorious, anti free speech, totalitarian impulse.

            1. Private actors can police their service however they want; that’s their freedom of speech. And also how the marketplace works. Anything else would be tyrannical big government even I couldn’t get behind.

              While I’m all for public debate and diversity of viewpoint (I’m even for affirmative action for conservative professors), I also recognize that some viewpoints aren’t worth engaging. Like how I ignore RightWingRacistSexist.
              So I have seen a lot of caterwauling against ‘the purge’ of a bunch of out-and-out ‘it’s OK to be white’ types. I don’t see anything about ‘mainstream’ conservative viewpoints, though YMMV.
              I also have complete faith the fringey voices will continue to do fine getting their message out.

              As to the speech itself, the images if ‘Islamic Terror’ were being used to argue against immigration. As evidence, it’s pretty clearly more prejudicial than probative.
              But also criminalizing that speech is dumb on many levels, both philosophically and practically. As can be seen by the headaches these cases continually cause for Europe.

              1. Private actors can do as they like, (Unless a group has enough clout to get added to the list of “suspect classes” on some state’s public accommodation law, apparently.) but when a private actor achieves monopoly status, they’d better not, or the pressure for anti-trust action is going to mount.

                I think that’s what is going on now: Companies like Google and Facebook got big enough to have quasi-monopoly status, and now they’re abusing it. It’s going to be very hard for them to argue against anti-trust actions when they’re discriminating against half the political spectrum.

                1. Last time I checked, ‘political party’ is not a protected class so what’s the problem?

                  Ask TrueAmericanParrot if it should be (penumbra!!!!!!).

                2. I don’t buy the Google/Twitter are oppressing conservatives narrative quite yet. Partially because the conservatives I follow are very much still around, and partially because working the media refs and claiming that’s why you lose is a grand tradition on the right.

                  I’d be down with breaking up Google. But it’s kinda funny to see the right arguing for a resumption of the trust-busting your side has fought against for decades because you perceive your ox as the one being gored.

                  1. What, you mean the conservatives who haven’t yet been oppressed, haven’t yet been oppressed? That’s surprising.

                    It’s the Prager University case that concerns me the most. Prager does educational videos. You don’t have to agree with their ideology to understand that. They’re not a porn channel, they’re not doxing people, there’s no graphic violence in their videos. They just do conservative education.

                    An ever increasing proportion of their videos are being placed on “restricted” status by Youtube, the status that hides them from minors, and requires adults to opt through to view them. These are the videos. Do they strike you as so awful teens shouldn’t see them?

                    Prager isn’t the only conservative outlet being treated this way.

  11. Repubs’ logic:

    Banning images of violence is bad.

    Banning images of sex is good.

    You guys really need some mental health counseling.

    1. Can you link to Republicans wanting to “ban images of sex” ? I assume you’re referring to mere common regulation of pornography.

      What exactly is the equivalency you’re trying to draw between reality and fiction? Between prurient entertainment and reporting on extremely important newsworthy matters? Sure seems to be some mental health problems here but not where you think.

      1. Free speech rights don’t draw lines between reality and fiction, why are you doing so?

        1. Ok, do tell: it was a suit brought against the city of LA in 1998, although I don’t know who prosecuted. But city, state, and federal government were all run by Democrats (yes, Republicans had Congress but not the DOJ). Why are you blaming Republicans?

          1. oops, brought by the city of LA, not against. so Democrats.

    2. “Banning images of sex is good.

      You guys really need some mental health counseling.”

      Repubs? Is it Repubs’ fault that my employer can get sued if I have a calendar of gals in swimsuits on my desk?

  12. I guess Cult of Chucky will not be shown in French theaters anytime soon.

  13. Sounds like the kind of law Stephen Lathrop wants for America. All in the name of increasing freedom of speech, of course.

  14. This prosecution, even if valid under French law, is unfortunate because it only serves to give a political has-been a new platform.

Please to post comments