Emmanuel Macron decided to take legal action against Candace Owens, an American political commentator, after she spread theories about Brigitte Macron. The French president publically explained his motivations, seeking to present the suit as a reaction not so much political as individual and moral.
Initially, the Elysée Palace did not intend to react, and Macro himself admitted that the standard approach was silence. As he himself recalls:
"There was a tradition of saying: it must be kept quiet. This is what we did in the beginning.”
This strategy was expected to defend the first woman and not spread rumors that Macron thought had no support in reality. The president's advisers suggested avoiding confrontation, pointing to the alleged Streisand effect – a phenomenon in which the effort to silence false information leads to an even wider spread of it.
However, over time, Macron changed his approach. The communicative of Brigitte Macron's alleged transgenderity penetrated American alternate media and online communities, taking on a scale that the French president no longer intended to ignore.
"It became so common in the United States that we had to react. It's about respecting the truth... We are talking about the marital position of the First woman of France – wife, mother, grandmother.”
Macron, who frequently stressed that the private sphere should stay intact, this time felt that silence did not defend either him or his wife, but on the contrary, allows uncontrollable improvement of lies.
"This is simply a substance of defending my honor! due to the fact that it's nonsense."
In this context, the suit against Owens was not expected to be so much a reaction to the commentator's very words as to the phenomenon that Macron sees as a much broader problem – the deficiency of work in media space, especially this American one. utilizing harsh words, the president referred to freedom of speech as a tool of manipulation:
“This is not freedom of speech erstwhile individual wants the fact to stay undisclosed. Those who talk of alleged freedom of speech are the same who ban journalists from entering the Oval Office. I do not accept this."
These words can be read as an allusion to Donald Trump's administration and more broadly – to the political trend Owens is associated with. Macron opposes this media culture, although it is not the first time he has been criticized for controlling communicative in his own country. His government in the past has repeatedly advocated regulation of content on the Internet, which faced allegations of restrictions on civilian liberties.
This time, Macro uses the same rhetoric in the fight for his family's good name, he claims. But his critics note that he is besides utilizing the situation to force the communicative in which he is simultaneously a victim, a defender of values, and a guardian of truth. In interviews, there is no area for questions about whether the answer to rumors should be judicial interference – the president focuses solely on the degree of the harm Owens felt had done.
"We cannot let conspiracy theories to become a fact by inaction. In my country, and in my home, it will not pass.”
It is not yet known what the result of the court case will be, but from a legal point of view Macron is on uncertain grounds. France and the United States disagree on the issue of freedom of expression, and American law importantly protects even the most controversial opinions, especially if they concern public people. Owens may argue that her comments were satirical or within the limits of acceptable criticism. Macron, on the another hand, seems to insist that this is not about politics, but about a individual human frontier.
“People have forgotten that there is simply a real female behind all this. My wife. Not the imagination of the Internet, not the theory, but the man who supported me and France for years.”
This is not the first time the president has taken action to reconstruct control of his image. In the past, Brigitte Macron has already brought a suit against those liable for spreading akin theories, but without greater media echo. Currently, erstwhile the case spread to global waters, Emmanuel Macron himself felt he had to stand in the front line.
Although his speeches propose that he acts as a husband and citizen, 1 cannot neglect to announcement that the decision to sue a prominent American media figure besides has a political dimension. In an era where the French political scene is under force from utmost forces – both left and right – Macron tries to build a position as a individual fighting for facts, not just for influence. At the same time, his speech suggests that he is not curious in compromise. There have been no declarations of openness for dialog with Owens or the desire to end the case on an out-of-court basis. On the contrary – Macron consistently repeats that the process is necessary.
"I don't fight a person, I fight a lie. And lying has its name, its sources, and its consequences."
The issue falls within the wider problem of the spread of conspiracy theories in net space. Macron, who was frequently the subject of disinformation, seems more determined than always to counter this phenomenon not only by political but besides by legal means. However, the line between protecting privacy and limiting public debate is not clear. There are no shortages of votes that the president is utilizing the situation to strengthen the transmission of his own moral superiority, while not settling the allegations of deficiency of transparency in another aspects of his policy.
Macron's speeches, nevertheless emotional and personal, are besides part of a precise media strategy. all conviction that falls from his mouth serves not only to defend the family's reputation but besides to strengthen his image as a defender of the “truth”. The problem is that the line between fact and political communicative can be thin.
We don't know if the case ends with Macro's win. But it is known that there is no turning back from the way he chose.
"I didn't do it for me. I did this due to the fact that I did not want my grandchildren to be ashamed of silence 1 day.”
These words culminate in his communicative – as president, husband and citizen, Macro justifies his decision with the request to leave a clear signal. But will this signal be read as an example of force, or a weakness toward provocation?
