Turley: Macron's free speech stance contradicts French values
Jonathan Turley argues in a Fox News opinion piece that French President Emmanuel Macron's recent statements on free speech represent a significant departure from democratic principles. Turley describes Macron's actions as a move toward censorship, noting that the French leader has become a vocal critic of American free speech norms. The piece centers on Macron's September 29 declaration that American free speech is the opposite of true free speech, which Turley characterizes as a pivotal moment in the French government's approach to public discourse. Turley, author of the book "The Indispensable Right," contends that France has been moving toward speech criminalization for decades. He cites specific legal outcomes to support this claim, including the 2010 and 2011 conviction of fashion designer John Galliano for antisemitic comments made in a Paris bar. Another example provided is the 2013 fine imposed on the father of French conservative presidential candidate Marine Le Pen for calling Roma people "smelly." Turley also references a 2020 case in which a French teenager was charged for describing Islam as a "religion of hate." These cases, according to Turley, illustrate vague legal standards that criminalize speech based on accusations of inciting or intimidating others on the basis of race or religion. The opinion piece draws a parallel between these legal actions and the French government's reaction to the 2015 Charlie Hebdo massacre. Turley argues that while the government organized a march for free speech following the attack by Islamic extremists, it subsequently used the tragedy to justify further crackdowns on expression. He notes that the victims were subject to criminal investigations for years prior to the event. Macron's support for the Digital Services Act is another focal point of Turley's critique. He states that Macron has promoted this legislation, which bars speech viewed as disinformation or incitement, alongside allies like Thierry Breton. Turley points to comments by European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager, who celebrated the Act by stating that what is illegal offline should also be illegal online. Despite these developments, Turley observes that Macron remains popular with the United States establishment and media. He recalls Macron's visit to Congress, where he called for a joint war against fake news and spoke about the corruption of information. Turley asserts that American representatives applauded these remarks without fully recognizing their implications for censorship. The author maintains that no censorship system in history has successfully eliminated an idea or movement. Instead, he argues, such systems grant politicians greater power to silence critics and intimidate opponents. Turley concludes that the solution to bad speech is more speech, allowing the public to weigh opposing views without government guidance. He suggests that hate and prejudice collapse when exposed to full debate, whereas government control undermines individual rights of religion and speech in favor of equity and fraternity.
Jonathan Turley argues in a Fox News opinion piece that French President Emmanuel Macron's recent statements on free speech represent a significant departure from democratic principles. Turley describes Macron's actions as a move toward censorship, noting that the French leader has become a vocal critic of American free speech norms. The piece centers on Macron's September 29 declaration that American free speech is the opposite of true free speech, which Turley characterizes as a pivotal moment in the French government's approach to public discourse. Turley, author of the book "The Indispensable Right," contends that France has been moving toward speech criminalization for decades. He cites specific legal outcomes to support this claim, including the 2010 and 2011 conviction of fashion designer John Galliano for antisemitic comments made in a Paris bar. Another example provided is the 2013 fine imposed on the father of French conservative presidential candidate Marine Le Pen for calling Roma people "smelly." Turley also references a 2020 case in which a French teenager was charged for describing Islam as a "religion of hate." These cases, according to Turley, illustrate vague legal standards that criminalize speech based on accusations of inciting or intimidating others on the basis of race or religion. The opinion piece draws a parallel between these legal actions and the French government's reaction to the 2015 Charlie Hebdo massacre. Turley argues that while the government organized a march for free speech following the attack by Islamic extremists, it subsequently used the tragedy to justify further crackdowns on expression. He notes that the victims were subject to criminal investigations for years prior to the event. Macron's support for the Digital Services Act is another focal point of Turley's critique. He states that Macron has promoted this legislation, which bars speech viewed as disinformation or incitement, alongside allies like Thierry Breton. Turley points to comments by European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager, who celebrated the Act by stating that what is illegal offline should also be illegal online. Despite these developments, Turley observes that Macron remains popular with the United States establishment and media. He recalls Macron's visit to Congress, where he called for a joint war against fake news and spoke about the corruption of information. Turley asserts that American representatives applauded these remarks without fully recognizing their implications for censorship. The author maintains that no censorship system in history has successfully eliminated an idea or movement. Instead, he argues, such systems grant politicians greater power to silence critics and intimidate opponents. Turley concludes that the solution to bad speech is more speech, allowing the public to weigh opposing views without government guidance. He suggests that hate and prejudice collapse when exposed to full debate, whereas government control undermines individual rights of religion and speech in favor of equity and fraternity.