French Court Sets Precedent in Cyberbullying Case, But U.S. Battle Looms
Brigitte Macron’s legal victory against online harassers in France marks a significant step in combating cyberbullying, though replicating that success in U.S.courts presents a formidable challenge.On Monday, a Paris court found ten individuals guilty of cyberbullying after they posted or reposted comments questioning teh French first lady’s gender and sexuality, a case that underscores the differing legal landscapes surrounding online speech in France and the United States.
The roots of this controversy trace back too 2017,when rumors began circulating online alleging that Brigitte Macron was born Jean-michel Trogneux and later changed her name. Conspiracy theorists fueled the claims, despite the Macrons’ insistence that Mr. Trogneux is, in fact, Ms.Macron’s 80-year-old brother residing in Amiens. Experts suggest the spread of these rumors is linked to a deep-seated mistrust of France’s political elite and scrutiny of the Macrons’ unconventional relationship – Emmanuel Macron is 24 years younger than his wife, and their history has been largely private.
“This is about defiance,” explains Emmanuelle Anizon, author of “The Madame Affair: The Anatomy of a Fake News Story,” who investigated the origins of the conspiracy. “the French no longer believe in their political elite. The more [the Macrons] hide their relationship, the more people think they could be hiding other things.”
The French legal system has demonstrated a willingness to address online harassment that U.S. courts have not yet matched.Cyberbullying has been a punishable offense in France since 2014, defined as repetitive online harassment or intimidation. While many U.S. states consider cyberbullying a crime, there is no equivalent federal law, complicating legal recourse for victims.
The Macrons previously pursued legal action against spiritual medium Amandine Roy and self-described independent journalist natacha Rey, securing a guilty verdict for slander. However, that ruling was later overturned on appeal, with the court determining that questioning someone’s gender did not constitute an “attack on their honor.” This highlights the complexities of applying French legal standards to these types of claims.
Legal experts note the Macrons strategically pursued a defamation lawsuit against Owens in the U.S.,rather than a case centered on hate speech,as U.S. law provides strong First Amendment protections for speech, even inflammatory rhetoric.The landmark 1969 Brandenburg v.Ohio Supreme Court ruling established that speech can only be prohibited if it incites imminent lawless action. Misgendering, in and of itself, does not meet this threshold.
“The First amendment is all about the marketplace of ideas,and restrictions are minimal,” says Roman Zinigrad,an assistant professor of law at the American University of Paris. “if someone calls to kill a [certain ethnic minority group], such as, it’s considered hate speech. But practically anything else is allowed.”
Despite these challenges, Ms. Macron emphasized the personal impact of the allegations during police questioning, stating that they had “a significant impact on those around me and on myself.” She expressed hope that the French case would “set an example” and deter future online bullying.
The French ruling establishes a precedent for how cyberbullying claims will be processed in French courts going forward. Though, its impact on the U.S. case is expected to be limited. Unlike French judges,who prioritize the technical aspects of the law,American judges consider societal context when interpreting legal statutes.
“The law is not just a dead document,” Zinigrad added.
For now,the Macrons are celebrating their victory in France. “up until now in France, we have had a tolerance for attacks against public figures, as if it’s part of the deal of being famous,” says Gérard Haas, a Paris-based lawyer specializing in cyberbullying. “But now, there are clearer limits as to what can be said about others online, with potential sanctions to back it up. It’s not easy to say something criminal about a public figure, but it’s possible.”
