University of Ljubljana
Faculty of Social Sciences
“CASE GARAUDY VS. FRANCE”
Intermediate report
Jani Levstik
Mentor: mag. Mojca Jarc
Date: 11. 12. 2007
Freedom of speech has been already recognized in all western states and had been already
spread to some parts of other continents such as Africa and Asia. Freedom of speech is quite
connected white the hate speech, because the hate speech can be recognized as a violation of
freedom of speech or just another part of that freedom. Usually person, who uses hate speech,
wants to excuse himself by appealing to the freedom of speech. In modern days, freedom of
speech is especially connected with media. In my intermediate report I will explore abut the
freedom of speech in connection with hate speech and I will try to find how the freedom of
speech in media is defined in French legal system. I will check the French constitution and
legislation and try to find laws where the freedom of speech is mentioned.
Freedom of speech has been recognized as a right in the Article 11 of the Declaration of
the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 and since the rule established by Conseil
constitutionnel in 1971 its constitutionality cannot be challenged. The free communication of
thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man. Freedom of speech thus
defined by Article 11 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen has
achieved universal scope worldwide. The article inspired the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights adopted by the United Nations (see Freedom of speech in the French media).
Absolute freedom of speech does not exist neither in the West nor anywhere else. There
are some examples that can be used as a prove: the French national assembly new laws to
strengthen the existing measures against racism, "The measures also outlaw revisionism - a
historical tendency rife among extreme activists which consists of questioning the truth of the
Jewish Holocaust in World War II." Intellectuals were worried about the word measure
included in the legislation. Another example can be connected with the case of Garaudy v.
France. Bernard Lewis, Princeton University professor, denied that Armenians were victims
of genocide in Ottoman Turkey early in previous century and he was financially punished. He
considers that there was no systematic extinction and the victims mostly died because of
famine. He had to publish the court ruling in the daily Le Monde, where he had already
published his statements. The Court warned him that he risked further judicial action if he
repeats his denial. University teachers accused him betraying the truth and insulting the
victims of Turkish brutality. First, they tried to prosecute Lewis under the Gayssot law, which
makes denying the Holocaust a criminal offense. But it was pointed out to the Armenians that
Gayssot had restricted his new law to those denying the truth of the Nazi persecution of the
Jews (see Mohammed).
Not only lack of absolute freedom speech, the West lacks also absolute freedom of
thinking. For example, the hospitality of German prisons for believing that the Holocaust has
never happened. For instance, in North America, one would lose just one's job for
disbelieving in the Holocaust. This indulgence can be connected with the fact that American
jails are overcrowded. Especially in modern days where women have become emancipated,
questioning the differences between men and women is a taboo that any human being should
not discuss. But it should not be construed however that freedoms of thought and speech do
not exist in the West. The fact is that the West enjoys more freedom of speech than anywhere
else in the world. There are also other freedoms, such as freedom to protest, demonstrate
which are provided by constitutions and sometimes oppose the freedom of speech and
thought. Freedoms guaranteed by western countries should be regarded as a whole.
Mohammed claims that no one can disregard open discussions taking place in parliament and
can dismiss the role of Western media in exposing politicians’ misbehavior. Nevertheless,
these freedoms are neither unlimited nor unconditional (see Mohammed). Opinions that are
not in the accordance with powerful groups might be silenced by nonviolent means. George
Orwell maintained that ‘press is extremely centralized and most of it is owned by wealthy
men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics.’ So, there should be
the freedom of speech but definitely not the absolute freedom of speech. Offensive and hate
speech have fatal consequences. They lead to the spread of animosity and divisiveness. That’s
why the freedom of speech should be limited for the purposes of social peace and harmony.
Societies have so much to gain by pursuing outrageous speech. The whole world has to efface
the mentality that approves hate speech rather than enforcing it by democratic legislation (see
French Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
France adheres to the European Convention on Human Rights and accepts the jurisdiction
of the European Court of Human Rights. French law prohibits public speech or writings that
incite to racial or religious hatred, as well as those that deny of Holocaust. In December 2004,
a controversial addition was made to the law, criminalizing the prohibition to hatred or
violence against people because of their sexual orientation. The government restricts
the right of broadcasting to authorized radio and television channels; the authorizations are
granted by an independent administrative authority; this authority has recently removed the
broadcasting authorizations of some foreign channels because of their anti-Semitic content.
The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious human rights:
hence every citizen may speak, write, print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such
abuses of this freedom as shall be determined by Law. In France, the State guarantees press
freedom and safeguards media independence by ensuring the diversity of opinion and
pluralism of news and information. The Act of 29 July 1881 on freedom of the press provides
a framework for press freedom by setting restrictions designed to strike a balance between
freedom of expression and maintaining law and order.
In France, the state guarantees the freedom of the press and safeguards the independence
of the media by preserving the conditions for diverse opinions and pluralism in the media.
The Act on Freedom of the press (29 July 1881) provides a framework for press freedom by
setting restrictions aimed at striking a balance between freedom of speech, protection of
individual rights, and public order. Hence, the law protects minors from written material and
illustrations in which they can be identified and it also prohibits licentious and violent
publications that target minors. Any allegation of a fact that damages the honor or reputation
of the person constitutes defamation. “Gayssot Act” introduced a right to respond for any
person who considers that 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 fine for the public expression of ideas that challenge the existence of the
crimes against humanity committed by Nazi Germany during World War II (see French
Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
The purpose of the laws on audiovisual communications is to guarantee media
independence and pluralism by establishing rules on to limit media concentration. The
legislation includes also special measures to protect minors, such as the ban on broadcasting
programmes for them of a pornographic or violent nature (see French Ministry of Foreign
Affairs). Freedom of Communication may be limited only, to the extent required, for the
respect of human dignity, freedom and property of other people, the pluralistic nature of the
expression of ideas and opinions and, safeguarding of law and order, for national defence, for
the protection of children and adolescents (see Freedom of speech in the French media). The
law punishes slander and defamation:
"Any offensive expression, contemptuous term or invective, not based on fact, constitutes
slander. Any allegation or imputation of an act which dishonors or damages the reputation of
the person or entity against whom it is made constitutes defamation" (Article 29, Act of 29
July 1881).
So, freedom of speech in the audiovisual media must respect human dignity and must not
transgress individual rights.
I can conclude that France guarantees the freedom of the press and try to maintain the
independence of the media by preserving the conditions for diverse opinions and pluralism in
the media. The framework for press freedom is provided by the Act on Freedom of the press.
It sets restrictions and preserved the balance between freedom of speech and public order. But
there does not exist anywhere the absolute freedom of speech. There were some cases where
individuals denied the Holocaust and they were punished. If there would exist absolute
freedom of speech, everyone would be able to talk whatever he wants. That’s way would be
hate speech legitimate and would not be condemned. That would have fatal consequences
because it would lead to the spread of animosity and divisiveness in the society.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Freedom of speech in the French media, http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/Freedom-of-speechin-the-French.html, last accessed: December 2007.
French Ministry of Foreign Affairs: “La France à la loupe: Freedom of speech in the French
media” (http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/Freedom_speech.pdf), last accessed: December
2007.
Mohammed, Sherif Freedom of Speech, Freedom from speech, and the West’s Double
Standard, last accessed: December 2007.