The seeds of tyranny are often sown not with grand declarations, but with quiet restrictions. Recently, a French court delivered a verdict that should send a chill down the spine of anyone who values freedom of expression: ten individuals were found guilty of “cyberbullying” the First Lady, Brigitte Macron.
The accusations weren’t threats of violence, blackmail, or any demonstrable harm. They were, by all accounts, crude, conspiratorial, and deeply disrespectful statements – baseless claims about her identity and character circulated online. While undeniably unpleasant, they were fundamentally expressions of speech, however misguided.
To criminalize such speech, even when it’s ugly and offensive, is a dangerous precedent. Free societies are built on the principle of tolerating dissenting – and even distasteful – opinions, precisely to avoid empowering the state to dictate what is permissible thought. This is the line that has now been crossed.
How did Europe, the birthplace of the Enlightenment and a historical defender of liberty, arrive at a point where courts are used to punish online insults? It’s a question that demands urgent attention, as the implications are profound and far-reaching.
The punishments handed down were not mere symbolic gestures. Defendants face mandatory “cyberbullying awareness” programs and even suspended prison sentences of up to eight months – a remarkable escalation for speech that involved no physical harm or direct threats. The message is clear: criticize those in power at your own peril.
The court justified its decision by citing comments deemed “particularly degrading, insulting, and malicious,” including speculation about Brigitte Macron’s gender and accusations stemming from the age gap with her husband. But by acting as the arbiter of acceptable opinion, the French government has normalized the idea that political speech is not unconditionally protected.
The situation is further complicated by the emotional impact on the Macron family. Brigitte Macron’s daughter testified about the “deterioration” in her mother’s life, stating she “cannot ignore the horrible things said about her.” While understandable, this sets a catastrophic standard for criminal punishment.
If the threshold for state intervention is whether a public figure can emotionally “ignore” speech, then free expression becomes entirely dependent on individual resilience. Would the same words have been criminalized if they had been dismissed instead of internalized? This is a dangerous blurring of psychology and law.
This standard is infinitely expandable. Any politician, family member, or government official could now claim subjective distress as grounds to silence critics. Once personal discomfort dictates criminality, speech rights shift from the public to those most easily offended.
This isn’t a hypothetical concern; Europe is already on this path. We’ve seen citizens detained not for violent acts, but for silently holding “wrong” thoughts. A woman was even arrested for quietly praying in public, accused of a crime without uttering a single word.
When the state claims the authority to punish what someone *might* be thinking, the distinction between a free society and one of managed obedience vanishes. This is totalitarianism in a modern guise – devoid of jackboots and gulags, but fueled by euphemisms like “harm,” “safety,” and “dignity.”
If Europe’s leaders cannot tolerate mockery, offense, or even silent dissent without resorting to legal force, they have forgotten the very freedoms they once championed. This should be far more alarming than any crude internet post, for it signals a profound erosion of the principles upon which a free society is built.
