Hate speech laws in France

Last updated

The hate speech laws in France are matters of both civil law and criminal law. Those laws protect individuals and groups from being defamed or insulted because they belong or do not belong, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation, or a gender identity or because they have a handicap. The laws forbid any communication which is intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of, or harm to, anyone because of his belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation, or a gender identity, or because he or she has a handicap.

Contents

Blasphemy

France abolished the offence of blasphemy in 1791; but the offence persisted in the regions of Alsace and Moselle as Articles 166 and 167 of the local penal code until 2016. The articles persisted as a holdover from the German criminal code of 1871. Validated by La loi du 17 Octobre 1919 and le Décret du 25 Novembre 1919, the articles forbade public blasphemy against God. No convictions under Articles 166 and 167 were registered. [1]

Freedom of the press

The Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881 guarantees freedom of the press, subject to several prohibitions. Article 24 prohibits anyone from publicly inciting another to discriminate against, or to hate or to harm, a person or a group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap. The penalty for violating this prohibition is up to a year of imprisonment and a fine of up to €45,000, or either one of those, as well as the suspension of some civil rights in some cases.

Articles 32 and 33 prohibit anyone from publicly defaming or insulting a person or group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap. The penalty for defamation is up to a year of imprisonment and a fine of up to €45,000, or either one of those punishments. The penalty for insult is up to six months of imprisonment and a fine of up to €22,500, or either one of those punishments.

La loi du 29 juillet 1881 allows the public prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings against a violator of the law either upon the complaint of a victim or upon his own initiative. A victim may choose to undertake a civil action against a violator. Such a civil action must obey rules prescribed for a criminal proceeding, and a court may assess both civil damages and criminal penalties at the same time. Article 48-1 permits civil-rights organizations to seek damages for violations of the law. [1] [2]

Holocaust

Act 90-615 of 13 July 1990 or the Gayssot Act (named for its sponsor in the National Assembly) introduced a right to respond for any person who considers that a newspaper or other print medium has damaged his honor on the grounds of his ethnicity, nationality, race or religion. The Gayssot Act sets a punishment of five years' imprisonment and a €45,000 fine for the public expression of ideas that challenge the existence of the crimes against humanity committed by Nazi Germany during World War II as defined in the appendix to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945.

Penal code

The non-public insult of a person or a group of people because of their origin or their membership or their non-membership, true or supposed, to an ethnic group, a nation, sexual identity, gender identity, disability, a race or a specific religion is punishable by a fine of €500, or up to €3000 for a repeat offence. [2]

Other fields of law

By legislation adopted in 1972, France may ban groups that advocate racism. [3]

Online hate speech

In March 2019, Laetitia Avia drafted legislation (Avia law  [ fr ]) that is similar to Germany's NetzDG. The law required the regulation of hateful content online. In July 2019, the National Assembly passed the bill to enforce these rules to limit hateful content online. These rules may apply to all hateful content and extremism. [4] Those who fail to comply face up to 75,000 to 250,000 euros per fine. [5]

On 13 May 2020, the National Assembly was passed the legislation and would likely to go effect in 18 June. [6]

On 18 June 2020, the French Constitutional Council struck down core provisions of the law. [6]

Selected cases

In 1984, a judge of first instance prohibited a poster that advertised the film Ave Maria by Jacques Richard. The poster showed a young woman, covered only at the waist, with her arms and feet tied to a cross. [1] No appeal was made.

In 1985, three organizations asked a court in Paris to ban the film Je vous salue, Marie by Jean-Luc Godard. The film put the biblical story of Mary and Joseph in a modern setting. The organizations said the film insulted their religion. The court refused to ban the film. [1]

In 1988, a court refused to ban the film The Last Temptation of Christ by Martin Scorsese. Several organizations argued that the film insulted Christians, but the trial judge allowed the film to be shown if it contained the warning—and if its advertising contained the warning—that the film was not an adaptation of the Bible.

In 1989, a court in Paris refused to ban the novel The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie for being an insult to Muslims because the novel was not forced on anyone. [1]

In 1994, the newspaper Le quotidien de Paris published the article L'obscurité de l'erreur by journalist, sociologist, and historian Paul Giniewski. The article was a reaction to the publication of the papal encyclical Veritatis Splendor . In the article, Giniewski criticizes the Pope, and states that "Catholic doctrine abetted the conception and the realization of Auschwitz". A Catholic organization initiated criminal proceedings on the ground that the article was an insult to a group because of its religion. The court of first instance convicted the newspaper, but the first court of appeal annulled the conviction. The Catholic organization launched a civil action. The court of first instance decided that the article constituted a defamation of Catholics. The first court of appeal disagreed. The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the first court of appeal had made an error, and referred the matter back to that court. The first court of appeal then held Giniewski liable for defaming Catholics. Giniewski appealed, but the Supreme Court of Appeal rejected his contention that his aim was not to insult Catholics but to present an opinion in good faith. Giniewski appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court held that the courts of France were wrong. [1]

In 1997, a Christian organization asked for the removal of a poster which advertised the film The People vs Larry Flynt by Miloš Forman. The poster depicted a miniature Woody Harrelson—the actor who played the role of porn-tycoon Larry Flynt—in a loincloth made from the American flag, and suspended as though crucified upon the pubic area of a bikini-clad woman. A court rejected the organization's contention that the poster insulted Christians. [1]

In 1998, a Christian organization asked to ban caricatures published by the satirical magazine La Grosse Bertha. One of its covers represented the Christ dying with the inscription: I suck (in French, "je suçe", which pronounces similarly to "Jesus") was his name by Robert Obscene and Alain Porno from the Acadébite (a play on the words Academy and penis), on inside page a cartoon with the Christ saying Why have you forsaken Me Jerk? and the apostles at the foot of the cross carrying banners: pension forced to 33 years, Job insecurity, in back page, a drawing titled miscellaneous news item illustrated with a disemboweled slept naked woman a crucifix crashed in the vagina and on another cover under the title: the Pope at the transvestites, a drawing representing Pope John-Paul II sodomized by a transvestite who exclaims: welcome to Brazil. The courts of first instance and appeal decided that they didn't constitute an incitement to hatred towards the Catholics. The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the first court of appeal had made a procedural error, and referred the matter back to another court which confirmed the absence of conviction decided by the lower courts and considered that mockery of the Catholic religion, the faiths, the symbols and the rites of the religious practice had not caused any state of mind for incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence and was no justification to restrict the liberty of the press. [7]

In 2002, a Christian organization asked for the removal of a poster which advertised the film Amen by Costa Gavras. The poster depicted a cross and a swastika, a priest and a Nazi officer. The organization said the poster was an insult to Catholics. A court found otherwise. [1]

In 2002, a court in Paris considered a complaint by several civil-rights organizations about a remark by Michel Houellebecq, the author of the novel Platforme. During an interview, Houellebecq remarked that Islam is "the stupidest religion." The court decided the remark could neither be considered a racial insult to Muslims nor an incitement to religious or racial hatred. [1] [8]

In 2002, several civil-rights organizations initiated civil and criminal proceedings against Oriana Fallaci and her publisher for the novel La Rage et l'Orgueil. The organizations argued that the novel insulted Arabs, Muslims, and Islam, and incited discrimination, hatred, and violence on religious and racial grounds. The legal proceedings foundered for procedural reasons. [1]

In March 2005, Marithé François Girbaud, a brand of women's clothing, had a billboard—40 metres long—placed on a building on the Avenue Charles-de-Gaulle in Neuilly-sur-Seine. The billboard featured a photograph of twelve beautiful, well-dressed women and one shirtless man posed round a table in the manner of the characters in the painting Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci. A Catholic organization complained that the billboard insulted a group of people because of their religion. The court of first instance convicted Girbaud, and ordered the billboard removed. In April 2005, a higher court upheld the conviction. In November 2006, the Supreme Court of Appeal annulled the conviction. [1] [9] [10]

On 25 April 2005, the daily newspaper Libération published a depiction of Christ—naked except for a big condom—on a cloud above a gathering of bishops. Text on the drawing has a white bishop telling a black bishop that Christ would have used a condom. A Catholic organization complained that the drawing insulted a group of people because of their religion. In November 2005, the court of first instance acquitted Libération. In May 2006, a higher court confirmed the decision of the lower court. In May 2007, the Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed the decisions of the lower courts. [1]

In 2005, the organization Aides Haute-Garonne organized La nuit de la Sainte-Capote (the night of the Holy Condom), an informative evening about the prevention of the human immunodeficiency virus. To announce the event, the organization handed out a prospectus. The prospectus contained a head-and-shoulders image of a woman wearing a nun's bonnet. Near that image was the image of two pink condoms. The prospectus's text asked for the protection of Sainte Capote. A Catholic organization initiated proceedings on the ground that the prospectus insulted a group because of its religion. The court of first instance convicted Aides Haute-Garonne. The first court of appeal, the Court of Toulouse, upheld the conviction. In February 2006, the Supreme Court of Appeal annulled the conviction. [1]

In 2006, the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo released a special issue which featured cartoons pertinent to Islam, including some from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. A Muslim organization initiated criminal proceedings against Philippe Val, editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo, for insulting a group of people because of their religion. In March 2007, the court of first instance acquitted Val. The first court of appeal confirmed the lower court's judgment on the ground that the cartoons targeted only terrorists or fundamentalists—not the whole Muslim community. [1] [9] [11]

On 18 January 2007, a tribunal in Lyon sentenced Bruno Gollnisch to a three-month, suspended prison-term and a fine of €5,000 for the offense of contesting information about the Holocaust. The court also ordered him to pay €55,000 in damages to the plaintiffs and to pay for the judgment to be published in the newspapers that originally printed his remarks. [12] [13]

In 2007, the Supreme Court of Appeal considered a remark by a comedian during an interview published in the journal Lyon Capitale. The comedian said that "Jews are a sect, a fraud". The court said the remark was an insult to a group defined by their place of origin. [1] [14]

In 2008, legendary French actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted for the fifth time for inciting hatred. The Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples (MRAP) filed the charge against Bardot because, in a letter to the government about throat-cutting of animals during the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha, she complained about "this population that leads us around by the nose, [and] which destroys our country." [15]

In 2013 Bob Dylan was placed under judicial investigation in France for allegedly provoking ethnic hatred of Croats. It followed a legal complaint lodged by a Croat association in France over a 2012 interview Dylan gave to Rolling Stone magazine. [16] In April 2014, the case against Dylan himself was dropped, but the director of Rolling Stone's French edition was ordered to stand trial. [17]

Related Research Articles

A hate crime is a prejudice-motivated crime, which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of their physical appearance or perceived membership of a certain social group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation</span> Any communication that can injure a third partys reputation

Defamation, at a first approximation, is any form of communication that can injure a third party's reputation. This can include all modes of human-understandable communications: gestures, images, signs, words. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. For a communication to be considered defamatory, it must be conveyed to someone other than the defamed. Depending on the permanence or transience of the communication medium, defamation may be distinguished between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both. The exact definition of defamation and related acts, as well as the ways they are dealt with, can vary greatly between countries and jurisdictions; for example, whether they constitute crimes or not, to what extent insults and opinions are included in addition to allegations of facts, to what extent the alleged facts is a valid defence.

Blasphemous libel was originally an offence under the common law of England. Today, it is an offence under the common law of Northern Ireland, but has been abolished in England and Wales, and repealed in Canada and New Zealand. It is a form of criminal libel that consists of the publication of material which exposes the Christian religion to scurrility, vilification, ridicule, and contempt, with material that must have the tendency to shock and outrage the feelings of Christians.

Volksverhetzung, in English "incitement to hatred", "incitement of popular hatred", "incitement of the masses", or "instigation of the people", is a concept in German criminal law that refers to incitement to hatred against segments of the population and refers to calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them, including assaults against the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population.

Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred is a crime under the laws of several countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Monaco</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Monaco may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Both male and female same-sex sexual activity are legal in Monaco. However, same-sex couples and households headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for the same legal protections available to opposite-sex married couples.

The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 is an Act of the Parliament of Victoria, Australia, that makes behaviour that incites or encourages hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against another person or group of people, because of their race or religion, unlawful in Victoria. The Act was passed during the premiership of Steve Bracks and went into effect on 1 January 2002.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legality of Holocaust denial</span> Overview of anti-antisemitic legislation

Between 1941 and 1945, Nazi Germany perpetrated the Holocaust: a large-scale genocidal campaign in which approximately six million European Jews were systematically murdered throughout German-occupied Europe. Since World War II, several countries have criminalised Holocaust denial—the assertion by antisemites that the genocide was a hoax. Currently, 17 European countries, along with Israel and Canada, have laws in place that cover Holocaust denial as a punishable offence. Many countries also have broader laws that criminalise genocide denial, including that of the Holocaust. Among the countries that have banned Holocaust denial, Russia, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania have also banned Nazi symbols. Any expression of genocide justification is also a criminal offence in several countries, as is any attempt to portray Nazism in a positive light.

The issue of Freedom of religion in Russia is complex with a long and fraught history. As of 2023, Russia is a majority Russian Orthodox society, with significant minority religions within its borders protected by the Constitution of Russia. However, the international community often disputes whether this protection is carried out in practice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech by country</span>

Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of government censorship or punishment. "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless, the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly those with authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other forms and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Blasphemy law</span> Law prohibiting blasphemy

A blasphemy law is a law prohibiting blasphemy, which is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence to a deity, or sacred objects, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable. According to Pew Research Center, about a quarter of the world's countries and territories (26%) had anti-blasphemy laws or policies as of 2014.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hate speech laws in Canada</span> Canadian laws relating to hate speech

Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the federal Criminal Code, as well as statutory provisions relating to hate publications in three provinces and one territory.

The People's Democratic Republic of Algeria prohibits blasphemy against Islam by using legislation rather than by using Sharia. The penalty for blasphemy may be years of imprisonment as well as a fine. Every Algerian child has an opportunity to learn what blasphemy is because Islam is a compulsory subject in public schools, which are regulated jointly by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Religious Affairs.

The hate speech laws in Australia give redress to someone who is the victim of discrimination, vilification, or injury on grounds that differ from one jurisdiction to another. All Australian jurisdictions give redress when a person is victimised on account of colour, ethnicity, national origin, or race. Some jurisdictions give redress when a person is victimised on account of colour, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender identity, HIV/AIDS status or sexual orientation.

In Ireland, "publication or utterance of blasphemous matter", defamatory of any religion, was a criminal offence until 17 January 2020. It was a requirement of the 1937 Constitution until removed after a 2018 referendum. The common law offence of blasphemous libel, applicable only to Christianity and last prosecuted in 1855, was believed to fulfil the constitutional requirement until a 1999 ruling that it was incompatible with the constitution's guarantee of religious equality. The Defamation Act 2009 included a provision intended to fill the lacuna while being "virtually impossible" to enforce, and no prosecution was made under it. The 2009 statute increased controversy, with proponents of freedom of speech and freedom of religion arguing for amending the constitution. After the 2018 constitutional amendment, a separate bill to repeal the 2009 provision and residual references to blasphemy was enacted in 2019 by the Oireachtas (parliament) and came into force in 2020. The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, which includes religion among the characteristics protected from incitement to hatred, remains in force.

The trial of Geert Wilders, a member of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands, took place in the Netherlands in 2010 and 2011. Wilders was accused of criminally insulting religious and ethnic groups and inciting hatred and discrimination. He was found not guilty in June 2011.

Hate speech laws in England and Wales are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, sex, disability, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.

The hate speech laws in Poland derive from its Constitution and from its Penal Code. The laws discourage any conduct that foments racial, national, or sectarian hatred. The laws punish those who intentionally offend the feelings of the religious, e.g. by disturbing services or creating public calumny. They also prohibit public expression that insults a person or a group on account of national, ethnic, racial, or religious affiliation or the lack of a religious affiliation.

The freedom of expression in Brazil, is protected by section IV and XII of Article 5 of the Constitution of Brazil. Freedom of expression is not absolute.

Hate speech is public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Janssen, Esther (2009). "Limits to expression on religion in France" (PDF). Agama & Religiusitas di Eropa, Journal of European Studies, Volume V - nr. 1, 2009, pp. 22–45. Produced in cooperation between the University of Indonesia and the Delegation of the European Commission. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 February 2010. Retrieved 22 May 2010.
  2. 1 2 Décret no 2005-284 du 25 mars 2005 relatif aux contraventions de diffamation, d'injure et de provocation non publiques à caractère discriminatoire et à la compétence du tribunal de police et de la juridiction de proximité (in French)
  3. ↑ Loi no 72-546 du 1 juillet 1972 relative à la lutte contre le racisme (in French).
  4. ↑ "France's law on hate speech gets a thumbs down". EDRi. 4 December 2019. Retrieved 18 February 2020.
  5. ↑ "France: Analysis of draft hate speech bill". Article 19. Retrieved 18 February 2020.
  6. 1 2 "What's Going on With France's Online Hate Speech Law?". Lawfare. 23 June 2020. Retrieved 20 September 2020.
  7. ↑ Cour d'appel de Versailles, 18 March 1998, N° 1996-2195, on legifrance.gouv.fr.
  8. ↑ "Houellebecq Acquitted of Insulting Islam". Archived from the original on 4 July 2009. Retrieved 25 May 2010.
  9. 1 2 Viscusi, Gregory (22 March 2007). "French Magazine Is Cleared Over Muhammad Cartoons (Update2)". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 23 May 2010.
  10. ↑ Marithé & François Girbaud: Last supper
  11. ↑ JURIST - Paper Chase: France newspaper cleared of defamation for Muhammad cartoons republication
  12. ↑ Mahony, Honor (19 January 2007). "French far-right MEP fined for Holocaust remarks". euobserver.com. Retrieved 23 May 2010.
  13. ↑ See the French Wikipedia article Affaire des propos de Bruno Gollnisch d'octobre 2004.
  14. ↑ Affaire des propos de Y, Cour de cassation, Assemblée plénière, 16 February 2007, N° 06-81785, on legifrance.gouv.fr.
  15. ↑ Crumley, Bruce (15 April 2008). "Is Brigitte Bardot Bashing Islam?". Time. Archived from the original on 16 April 2008. Retrieved 24 May 2010.
  16. ↑ Bob Dylan faces French legal inquiry over Croat remarks.
  17. ↑ "French court drops 'hate speech' case against Bob Dylan". France 24. 15 April 2014. Retrieved 14 January 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.