Macron Goes Full Orwell: The French President Makes One More Pitch for Censorship

French President Emmanuel Macron went full Orwell this week. While long the darling of Western media, Macron has been one of the most anti-free-speech leaders in the world. This week, he declared that “The so-called American ‘free speech’ today, which some people have promoted, is the opposite of free speech.” Having Emmanuel Macron holding forth on free speech is akin to Joey Chestnut proselytizing on veganism.

France has been in a headlong plunge into censorship and speech criminalization. These laws criminalize speech under vague standards referring to “inciting” or “intimidating” others based on race or religion.

For example, fashion designer John Galliano has been found guilty in a French court on charges of making anti-Semitic comments in a Paris bar.

In another case, the father of French conservative presidential candidate Marine Le Pen was fined because he had called people from the Roma minority “smelly.” A French teenager was charged for criticizing Islam as a “religion of hate.”

Many of us were disgusted recently when Macron celebrated Brigitte Bardot’s life as someone who “embodied a life of freedom.” As discussed on this blog, the French government repeatedly prosecuted Bardot for speaking about her views.

Macron’s praise for Bardot’s “life of freedom” is reminiscent of the reaction of French officials to the massacre of editors at Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine. After hounding the victims for years with criminal investigations, the French government organized a march for free speech. As predicted, it then used the killing by Islamic extremists to further crack down on free speech.

In my book The Indispensable Right, I discuss how France has careened down the slippery slope of censorship for decades, and the desire to silence others has now become an insatiable appetite.

Macron has supported figures like his anti-free-speech ally Thierry Breton in globalizing the reach of the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA) to curtail speech, including Americans and American companies.

In his latest pitch for censorship, Macron pulls out an old saw that if everyone can speak freely, no one can speak freely.

Macron declared that “There is no freedom if there is no limit to my freedom, which begins with the freedom of others and respect for a common framework. I know this when I walk down the street: my freedom cannot mean hitting you, insulting you or trashing the public space we all share.”

That line is remarkably telling. It captures how even “insulting” language is treated as a crime in France.

Since then, France has been a leader in the rollback of free speech in the West, with ever-widening laws curtailing free speech. France regularly charges people for political and religious speech, including comedians and those criticizing the police.

Macron’s visceral reaction to free speech is shared by many in the European Union.

I spoke in Berlin at the World Forum, which boasted the slogan, “A New World Order with European Values.” Bill and Hillary Clinton and other Americans cheered on the European efforts.

The Digital Services Act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” When it was passed over the condemnations of many of us in the free speech community, European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore — that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”

Despite his unpopularity in France, Macron remains a favorite of the establishment and the media in the United States. I was appalled years ago when he came to Congress to spread his anti-free speech gospel. Macron called for a joint war against “fake news” and declared, “Democracy is about true choices and rational decisions. The corruption of information is an attempt to corrode the very spirit of our democracies.”

Our representatives applauded like seals with little recognition that he was referencing censorship. Macron believes that he should be able to dictate which views are “corrosive” to the spirit of democracy.

The claim that more speech means less speech is an oxymoronic talking point of the anti-free speech movement. As I discussed in my book, there has not been a single censorship system in history that has worked to kill a single idea or movement. Instead, it has given more power to politicians like Macron to silence critics and intimidate opponents.

In the end, the only true solution to bad speech is better speech. The public can sort out their own values and weigh opposing views without the strict guidance of the government. Free speech serves as its own disinfectant.

Ultimately, allowing people not just free inquiry but free expression bends the arch of humanity toward truth. Hate and prejudice are inherently flawed values that tend to collapse when exposed to full, robust debate.

That does not mean that it will eliminate racism, sexism, or other forms of hate. Neither censorship nor free speech can make everyone better people. However, what Macron is peddling is the same tired, dishonest claim that free speech is harmful and the government must control what people see and say in public discourse.

This is a nation that still echoes the cry of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity (“liberté, égalité, fraternité”). However, in today’s France, “liberté” remains a declining value. Individual rights of religion and speech are routinely sacrificed in the name of “equity” and “fraternity.”

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

 

 

121 thoughts on “Macron Goes Full Orwell: The French President Makes One More Pitch for Censorship”

  1. If you lock up someone for what they say, then you’re jailing political dissidents in order to maintain your political power. The very definition of tyranny.

  2. Could it be that the french are just still mad about all the ribbing they get about being french?

  3. I don’t believe Orwell was in favor of censorship. His book was a warning, though the far left has taken it as a template.

  4. Orwell in his book: Animal Farm. The pigs turned into men. I’ve raised a few pigs on my one acre county lot.
    I penned them up in a very confined space (it was what I had). I fed and watered them well. Periodically I would release them out into the pasture to clean their pen. They ran free and began to gleefully root up the soft ground with their snouts. How to get them back into their confinement? No problem. I just rattled a coffee can with a cup of grain and they came a running to their trough. Pigs will trade freedom for food anytime. I wonder why Orwell had them turn into men?

  5. Obviously France and the UK reject the theory of natural law. Kbj most likely thinks in terms of the black law theory or perhaps J. Kagan thinks the feminist law theory is her approach. Shria law theory should come before SCOTUS and because it’s religion it will be acceptable under the Constitution. Perhaps we’ll see a tourist visa citizen from the CCP as president eventually.

    Anything is probable…

    Anonymoose

  6. Perhaps we should give the French back the Statue of Liberty, apparently they need it more than we do to remind them that we don’t need to be reminded by the French that we are a Free People with rights granted to us by God, not the government! A darkness and a chill has descended upon the UK and Europe, but that’s for them to sort out, and I believe I speak for a number of American who think we ought to cut Europe loose before they embroil in another European War!

    1. Agreed.
      An anti-free speech policy only works in a fully dis-educated society where alleged leaders know the population isn’t wise enough to weed out junk from real information. Further, this situation is absolutely ideal for politicians because they now get to tell you what is allowed “fact” and what isn’t. With a mischievous smirk, they’ll then tell you what they say is right is for the greater good, but conveniently forget to advise it’s even “more good” for their power and their wealth.
      How disgusting. But this has been the plan all along.

Leave a Reply