A Paris court has convicted 22 people for their involvement in a massive online harassment campaign targeting French First Lady Brigitte Macron. The defendants were handed sentences ranging from suspended prison terms to fines for their roles in spreading a transphobic conspiracy theory.

The legal action followed a viral misinformation campaign that falsely claimed the First Lady was born male under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux. This smear began in 2021 and was amplified by various online personalities and social media users, causing significant personal distress.

Legal experts and government officials have praised the ruling as a major victory against digital hate and the spread of fake news. The prosecution argued that the coordinated attacks were not merely "opinions" but a targeted effort to dehumanize a public figure.

Looking ahead, the defense has indicated that some of the convicted individuals may appeal the court's decision. This landmark ruling is expected to set a legal precedent for how French courts handle large-scale cyberbullying and gender-based online violence in the future.

Key Takeaways

A total of 22 individuals were found guilty by a Paris court for the online harassment of Brigitte Macron.

The harassment stemmed from a debunked 2021 conspiracy theory claiming the First Lady was born a man.

Sentences for the convicted parties included both fines and suspended prison time to deter future digital abuse

Adapted From

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/05/europe/brigitte-macron-online-harassment-convictions-intl

I'll bet dollars to donuts that Candace Owens won't be taking a trip to the French Riviera any time soon.

Why on earth were these vicious and cruel slanderers only given suspended sentences?

It wasn't true then?

38 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

Why on earth were these vicious and cruel slanderers only given suspended sentences?

The reasoning was, I suspect, that the fines were the actual punishment, the suspended sentences would be activated quickly if they started again.

The French courts, I suspect, are very aware of the limitations on government interference in social media, and probably don't want to create any "digital martyrs".

A foil rather than a sabre, if we use a fencing analogy - rather pleased with myself for that one!

27 minutes ago, JAG said:

The reasoning was, I suspect, that the fines were the actual punishment, the suspended sentences would be activated quickly if they started again.

The French courts, I suspect, are very aware of the limitations on government interference in social media, and probably don't want to create any "digital martyrs".

A foil rather than a sabre, if we use a fencing analogy - rather pleased with myself for that one!

Quite agree, especially....."The French courts, I suspect, are very aware of the limitations on government interference in social media, and probably don't want to create any "digital martyrs"."

It's a shame some other countries don't do the same, like the UK!

2 hours ago, Gsxrnz said:

I'll bet dollars to donuts that Candace Owens won't be taking a trip to the French Riviera any time soon.

I can't understand why Candace Owens was yakking about this.

I thought she was all about US politics.

Maybe anything that gets the looks on her social media.

She could remove all doubt with a DNA test. One has to wonder why she hasn't.

1 hour ago, JAG said:

The reasoning was, I suspect, that the fines were the actual punishment, the suspended sentences would be activated quickly if they started again.

The French courts, I suspect, are very aware of the limitations on government interference in social media, and probably don't want to create any "digital martyrs".

A foil rather than a sabre, if we use a fencing analogy - rather pleased with myself for that one!

I'll go along with your first paragraph's reasoning, and suspect that the sentences will deter others who might want to start doing the same.

As far as the French courts being reluctant to "interfere" with social media, I'm not sure if that is accurate. For example, the EU has been fairly aggressive in regulating social media, i.e., recent fines for 'X's' failure to adequately verify who could use the "blue check" verification symbol.

France's Key Monitoring and Regulatory Measures

• Pharos Platform: The French Ministry of Interior manages a dedicated government-led online platform called Pharos where users can report illegal online content, including hate speech, terrorism apology, and child sexual abuse material. Law enforcement specialists then coordinate the investigation and content removal process.

• Legal Obligations for Platforms: France has national laws that require social media platforms and search engines to have transparent and easily accessible mechanisms for users to report hate speech. The Law to Secure and Regulate the Digital Space (SREN law), enacted in May 2024, notably allows the national media regulator (ARCOM) to order platforms to institute temporary account bans on individuals convicted of spreading online hate speech.

• Online Hate Observatory: The media regulator, ARCOM (Autorité de régulation de la communication audiovisuelle et numérique), coordinates an "Online Hate Observatory" to monitor, analyze, and report on the spread of hateful content online in collaboration with operators, associations, and researchers.

• Law Enforcement Coordination: The Central Office for Combating Crimes against Humanity and Hate Crimes (OCLCH) is an inter-agency body that leads and coordinates investigations into online hate crimes, working with local units and serving as a national point of contact with entities like Europol.

• European Union (EU) Context: France's efforts align with broader EU initiatives. Platforms operating in the EU are also subject to the Digital Services Act (DSA), which provides a harmonized framework for how platforms moderate illegal content and enhances accountability and transparency measures. France was also a co-initiator of the global "Christchurch Call to Action" to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online. 

To those right wingers who think that people should be allowed to spread false rumors with impunity that your wife was born a man and transitioned to being a female, I have just one question. How would you feel if it happened to you?

14 minutes ago, impulse said:

She could remove all doubt with a DNA test. One has to wonder why she hasn't.

You don't know what evidence was presented to prove that the allegations were false. Presumably it was incontrovertible, and probably included a DNA test, as the court found the allegations to be false. You don't get to make sh** up and then demand someone get a DNA test to disprove your nonsense. By the way, the Macron's are suing Candace Owens in the US courts.

16 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

To those right wingers who think that people should be allowed to spread false rumors with impunity that your wife was born a man and transitioned to being a female, I have just one question. How would you feel if it happened to you?

Why not ask everyone ?

Why single out one specific group ?

Quote from the press: "“The defendants were accused of spreading false claims about her gender and sexuality, as well as making “malicious remarks” about the 24-year age gap between the couple."

Macron was 15 when he "met" (was met by) his wife. Is it a crime to denounce this? So in Society men get labelled by women as paedophiles for dating somebody 5 years younger, and here men get arrested for making ‘malicious remarks’ about a woman dating a man 24 years younger starting when he was 15 (and she was his teacher). Not to mention men getting long jail sentences for being seduced by 17-year old gold-diggers tarts.

I'm against pedohysteria but I'm against double standards too.

10 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

You don't know what evidence was presented to prove that the allegations were false. Presumably it was incontrovertible, and probably included a DNA test, as the court found the allegations to be false. You don't get to make sh** up and then demand someone get a DNA test to disprove your nonsense. By the way, the Macron's are suing Candace Owens in the US courts.

Have you seen any reports of a DNA test? I have not.

The flipside of your argument is that you don't get to prosecute people for telling lies unless you can prove that they're lies.

26 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

To those right wingers who think that people should be allowed to spread false rumors with impunity that your wife was born a man and transitioned to being a female, I have just one question. How would you feel if it happened to you?

How would I feel if my wife was born a man and transitioned to being a female? I'd feel bad.

6 minutes ago, JackGats said:

Apparently they were also sentenced for saying the relationship was pedophilic. Macron was 15 when he "met" (was met by) his wife. Is it a crime to denounce this?

Men get long jail sentences for being seduced by 17-year old gold-diggers tarts.

I'm against pedohysteria but I'm against double standards too.

Since the age of consent in France is 15 no crime would have been committed if sexual activity had occurred at that age.

40 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

To those right wingers who think that people should be allowed to spread false rumors with impunity that your wife was born a man and transitioned to being a female, I have just one question. How would you feel if it happened to you?

What if the person’s spreading this rumor really believe it’s true?

10 minutes ago, terryq said:

Since the age of consent in France is 15 no crime would have been committed if sexual activity had occurred at that age.

Indeed Macron set the age of consent at 15 back in 2021 in order to protect his own ass:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56413881

Title of the article: French MPs have voted to back a new law that would set the age of consent at 15 and prohibit sex with relatives aged under 18.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

She could remove all doubt with a DNA test. One has to wonder why she hasn't.

Probably because only the profoundly stupid would believe it for a minute.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

The flipside of your argument is that you don't get to prosecute people for telling lies unless you can prove that they're lies.

That is the MAGA version of the law.

The real versions is as follows.

The burden of proof is the legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove a fact or claim to a judge or jury, typically falling on the party bringing the claim (like the prosecution or plaintiff)

. It involves both the duty to present evidence (production) and the duty to persuade the fact-finder (persuasion), with different levels (standards) required, such as "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases or a "preponderance of the evidence" in most civil cases.

the fundamental principle of the

burden of proof, meaning the person asserting something must provide the proof, not expect others to disprove it. This applies in law (plaintiffs or prosecutors prove guilt/liability) and daily critical thinking, where extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and unsupported assertions can be dismissed. It's a core concept in logic and debate, preventing baseless claims from being accepted as true. 

2 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

That is the MAGA version of the law.

The real versions is as follows.

The burden of proof is the legal obligation of a party in a dispute to provide sufficient evidence to prove a fact or claim to a judge or jury, typically falling on the party bringing the claim (like the prosecution or plaintiff)

. It involves both the duty to present evidence (production) and the duty to persuade the fact-finder (persuasion), with different levels (standards) required, such as "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases or a "preponderance of the evidence" in most civil cases.

the fundamental principle of the

burden of proof, meaning the person asserting something must provide the proof, not expect others to disprove it. This applies in law (plaintiffs or prosecutors prove guilt/liability) and daily critical thinking, where extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and unsupported assertions can be dismissed. It's a core concept in logic and debate, preventing baseless claims from being accepted as true. 

Do you realise Macron is from France and that the Court case was held in France ?

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

It wasn't true then?

See ET lately?

1 hour ago, TedG said:

What if the person’s spreading this rumor really believe it’s true?

Is sincerely believing a false statement a viable defense to defamation?

AI Overview

No, simply sincerely believing a false statement isn't a direct defense to slander (defamation); you must prove the statement was true, an honest opinion, covered by privilege, or that the plaintiff can't prove harm/malice, as sincerity alone doesn't make a false, damaging statement legal, though "honest opinion" requires genuine belief plus factual basis. The main defenses are the statement's truth, it being an opinion, or privilege, not just belief, though belief is key for "honest opinion". 

4 hours ago, impulse said:

She could remove all doubt with a DNA test. One has to wonder why she hasn't.

She doesn't need to prove anything. Her gender is mentioned on her ID documents, established according to her birth certificate.

3 hours ago, JackGats said:

Indeed Macron set the age of consent at 15 back in 2021 in order to protect his own ass:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56413881

Title of the article: French MPs have voted to back a new law that would set the age of consent at 15 and prohibit sex with relatives aged under 18.

Of course, it's BS! 😁

From the article you linked:

It is expected to pass in the Senate and will give France an age of consent for sexual relations for the first time.

It comes after a series of sexual abuse scandals that shook the country.

Supporters say it will make it easier to prosecute both historical and recent cases of sexual abuse.

She can show a Willy or a pussy to Prove her gender

7 hours ago, candide said:

She doesn't need to prove anything. Her gender is mentioned on her ID documents, established according to her birth certificate.

I thought all that was done away with now and people could just "identify" as whatever they want So if she had publicly identified as a man the abuse would have become meaningless and would have stopped

12 hours ago, cdemundo said:

I can't understand why Candace Owens was yakking about this.

I thought she was all about US politics.

Maybe anything that gets the looks on her social media.

Some people dont like predatory pedophile schoolteachers grooming young children.

21 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

I thought all that was done away with now and people could just "identify" as whatever they want So if she had publicly identified as a man the abuse would have become meaningless and would have stopped

Why would she do that? 😅

Macron a lad boy lover L

?