Listen to the article
In a landmark cyberbullying case, a Paris court on Monday convicted ten individuals for spreading false claims about French First Lady Brigitte Macron’s gender and sexuality. The defendants were found guilty of propagating conspiracy theories alleging she was born male and portraying her relationship with President Emmanuel Macron in defamatory terms.
The court handed down varying sentences, with one defendant receiving six months in prison. Eight others received suspended sentences ranging from four to eight months. All ten individuals were ordered to complete mandatory cyberbullying awareness training, with the court characterizing their online behavior as “particularly degrading, insulting, and malicious.”
“Repeated publications have had cumulative harmful effects,” the court stated in its ruling, acknowledging the significant impact of the digital harassment campaign that had targeted the First Lady.
The defendants, comprising eight men and two women between 41 and 65 years of age, had posted numerous false claims suggesting that Brigitte Macron was transgender and characterizing the 24-year age difference between her and President Macron as pedophilia. Some of these posts garnered tens of thousands of views, amplifying their harmful reach.
While Brigitte Macron did not attend the October trial, she addressed her decision to pursue legal action during a Sunday interview on TF1 national television, stating she wanted to “set an example” in combating online harassment. Her lawyer, Jean Ennochi, emphasized the importance of the court-ordered cyberbullying awareness training and the restrictions placed on some defendants’ social media usage.
The human toll of the harassment was highlighted in testimony from Tiphaine Auzière, Brigitte Macron’s daughter, who described the “deterioration” of her mother’s life since the online attacks intensified. “She cannot ignore the horrible things said about her,” Auzière told the court, noting that the harassment had affected the entire family, including Macron’s grandchildren.
Among those receiving the harshest penalties was a property asset manager sentenced to six months in prison. Under French law, this sentence may be served under house arrest with possible electronic monitoring. Delphine Jegousse, a 51-year-old self-described medium and author known online as Amandine Roy, received a six-month prison sentence for her significant role in propagating the rumors through a four-hour video on YouTube in 2021.
Aurélien Poirson-Atlan, a 41-year-old who used the online persona “Zoé Sagan,” received an eight-month sentence. His X (formerly Twitter) account was suspended earlier this year after being linked to several judicial investigations. A gallery owner received an identical eight-month sentence.
The court showed some leniency toward a teacher who had apologized during the trial, exempting him from prison time but still requiring participation in cyberbullying awareness training. Several defendants will have their social media access suspended for six months on the platforms where they posted the defamatory content.
In addition to the individual penalties, all ten defendants were collectively ordered to pay €10,000 ($11,675) in moral damages to the First Lady.
During the trial, several defendants attempted to justify their actions as humor or satire, expressing confusion about their prosecution. However, the court determined that their comments crossed the line from protected speech into harassment and defamation.
The case emerges from a broader context of conspiracy theories falsely claiming that Brigitte Macron was born as “Jean-Michel Trogneux” – actually her brother’s name. The Macrons have also filed a defamation lawsuit in the United States against conservative commentator Candace Owens for spreading similar falsehoods.
The Macrons have been married since 2007, having first met when Emmanuel was a student and Brigitte a teacher at the same high school. Now 72, Brigitte Macron (then Brigitte Auzière) was a married mother of three when she first met the future president, who is now 48 and has led France since 2017.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
17 Comments
While public figures may face heightened scrutiny, the courts have rightly drawn a line at the malicious spread of demonstrably false claims. This verdict is an important precedent.
It’s concerning to see the scale and impact of the misinformation campaign targeting the First Lady. The court’s recognition of the cumulative harm is important.
Hopefully this verdict will serve as a deterrent against similar coordinated disinformation efforts in the future.
Interesting case study on the harmful effects of cyberbullying and the spread of false claims online. Protecting public figures from such harassment and defamation is an important issue.
Agreed, the court’s ruling sends a strong message about the consequences of propagating malicious misinformation.
This highlights the need for tougher action against digital harassment and the weaponization of social media to target and demean individuals. Glad the court took a firm stance.
Cyberbullying of public figures can have a chilling effect on free speech. However, the line must be drawn at the spread of demonstrably false claims.
Cyberbullying and misinformation can have serious consequences, even for high-profile individuals. This verdict demonstrates the courts’ willingness to hold perpetrators accountable.
This case underscores the need for greater digital literacy and accountability around the spread of false claims, especially those that target public figures. Glad to see the courts taking action.
While freedom of expression is important, it shouldn’t come at the expense of maliciously attacking someone’s identity and relationships. This case shows the courts taking a stand against such abuses.
The mandatory cyberbullying awareness training ordered by the court is an interesting approach to address the root causes of this harmful behavior.
The age difference between the Macrons has long been a target for attacks, but this case shows that simply being in the public eye does not make one fair game for defamatory claims.
Hopefully this ruling will discourage others from engaging in similar harassment campaigns against public figures in the future.
The court’s ruling highlights the complex balance between free speech and online harassment. While open debate is important, the deliberate propagation of harmful falsehoods crosses a line.
Mandatory training for the defendants is an interesting approach – education may be key to curbing this type of behavior.
Cyberbullying and disinformation can have a corrosive effect on public discourse. This case highlights the need for stronger legal protections against such harmful behavior.
The court’s acknowledgment of the cumulative harm caused by the defendants’ actions is a crucial recognition of the real-world impact of online harassment.