14 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

So if she had publicly identified as a man the abuse would have become meaningless and would have stopped

14 hours ago, candide said:

Why would she do that? 😅

as I said in the comment......

14 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

if she had publicly identified as a man the abuse would have become meaningless and would have stopped

I was assuming she did not enjoy the abuse and would have preferred it to stop , I was suggesting an easy way to stop it . Hope that clarifies things, I will explain further if required

21 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

as I said in the comment......

I was assuming she did not enjoy the abuse and would have preferred it to stop , I was suggesting an easy way to stop it . Hope that clarifies things, I will explain further if required

Ahem...

It appears the news in this thread has triggered a predictable few into bouts of FOMO.

On 1/6/2026 at 7:48 AM, mikeymike100 said:

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!

On 1/5/2026 at 8:40 PM, impulse said:

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

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

On 1/5/2026 at 9:16 PM, impulse said:

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.

No. That is not how the law is written or applied. Nor is a DNA test even supported in this case since it has already been established that Brigitte Macron is the biological mother of 3 children. Surely, even by your extremist standards, a person who gestates and then delivers 3 children naturally can not be denied as a female?

On 1/5/2026 at 9:30 PM, TedG said:

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

Many mentally ill people believe that their fantasies are real. We see it in several of the forums, especially on the topics associated with healthcare. This does not relieve them of the burden of not lying or bullying. The people here were convicted of cyber bullying. Even when ordered to stop, they persisted.

On 1/6/2026 at 8:40 AM, impulse said:

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

You make a fair point, but it often backfires by giving oxygen to conspiracists, leading to more scrutiny or new theories (Streisand effect)

On 1/5/2026 at 5:14 PM, Gsxrnz said:

I'll bet dollars to donuts

donuts cost about a dollar each now.

So, no bet ...

What next.?

Michele Obama is trans.?

omg

15 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Some people dont like predatory pedophile schoolteachers grooming young children.

The people convicted of cyber bullying were not motivated by moral indignation. They were harassing the Macrons claiming Brigitte was a man. They were not protesting the previous relationship, which you obviously do not understand. Brigitte was never Emmanuel's teacher. They met when he worked on a school play. She had no direct influence or oversight over him. His relationship progressed after he moved to another school. The age of consent in such a situation is 15 years. I am not here to justify the relationship. One look at some of the convicted should make it clear what their motives were. In some cases, I expect it was jealousy.

The convicted bully Delphine Jegousse, known as Amandine Roy is hardly a portrait of decency.

Bertrand Scholler posted an edited photo of Brigitte Macron in a bathing suit. Her head had been cut out and a man’s torso edited in. This was the work of a malicious bully intentionally presenting false information.

12 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

On 1/6/2026 at 9:40 AM, impulse said:

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

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Not on the interwebs.

But when you get to a court of law, don't you need to prove that people are lying in order to prosecute or sue them for defamation?

Brian Chai wrote an excellent article about the slippery slope in Western Journal, that's also being picked up across the conservative media. Here's a snippet:

Let’s be clear: The claim that French first lady Brigitte Macron is secretly a man is absurd, unserious, and a distraction from real problems.

......

If the threshold for state intervention is whether a powerful public figure can emotionally “ignore” speech, then free expression becomes entirely contingent on temperament. Had Brigitte Macron possessed thicker skin, would no crime have occurred? If the remarks had been laughed off instead of internalized, would the same words suddenly become lawful? This is psychological guesswork masquerading as “law.”

Worse still, this standard is infinitely expandable. Any politician, spouse, or government-adjacent figure can now claim subjective distress as grounds to silence critics, satirists, or online provocateurs. Once personal discomfort becomes the metric for criminality, speech rights no longer belong to the public — they belong to the most thin-skinned people closest to power.

On a related note, imagine what would happen if Trump started prosecuting people for ridiculing him or calling him a convicted rapist... Would that be okay?

1 minute ago, impulse said:

Not on the interwebs.

But when you get to a court of law, don't you need to prove that people are lying in order to prosecute or sue them for defamation?

Brian Chai wrote an excellent article about the slippery slope in Western Journal, that's also being picked up across the conservative media. Here's a snippet:

If the threshold for state intervention is whether a powerful public figure can emotionally “ignore” speech, then free expression becomes entirely contingent on temperament. Had Brigitte Macron possessed thicker skin, would no crime have occurred? If the remarks had been laughed off instead of internalized, would the same words suddenly become lawful? This is psychological guesswork masquerading as “law.”

Worse still, this standard is infinitely expandable. Any politician, spouse, or government-adjacent figure can now claim subjective distress as grounds to silence critics, satirists, or online provocateurs. Once personal discomfort becomes the metric for criminality, speech rights no longer belong to the public — they belong to the most thin-skinned people closest to power.

This was not about free speech. It was cyber bullying. The intentional harassment of the couple. The convicted knowingly used false information to attack the Macrons. Wrapping themselves in the claim of free speech failed because the claims that were made were intentionally false.

If your photo and name was published and then circulated along with the claim that you engaged in child sex and traveled to Thailand to specifically have sex with underage children, you might be upset. You would try and get it to stop saying it was damaging your reputation. Your previous argument holds that because you are in Thailand allows your presence to be questioned. Why would a US national travel to a SE Asian country? You could just as easily purchase Phad Thai at a local shop or worship at a wat online. Using your argument, the burden is now on you to prove that you do not travel to Thailand to have sex with children, Once your ophoto and name was published and repeatedly circulated, the damage would be done. And even if the the claim was shown to be false and people persisted in spreading the lie, your argument would hold that it was ok because it was free speech. There is no justification in knowingly spreading false information with the intent to harm a person's reputation. It is a wrongful act and is not protected in law. An apology after the fact would be useless since the harm would have been done.

On 1/6/2026 at 9:06 AM, Nick Carter icp said:

Why not ask everyone ?

Why single out one specific group ?

Exactly, don't leave us Gallophobes out of the equation.

7 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

This was not about free speech. It was cyber bullying. The intentional harassment of the couple. The convicted knowingly used false information to attack the Macrons. Wrapping themselves in the claim of free speech failed because the claims that were made were intentionally false.

Watch "Becoming Brigitte". If it's false (and I am wide open to that possibility), it's one of the best documented and footnoted hoaxes in history.

Don't bother responding unless you actually watch it... That would be like going to a book club discussion without reading the book.

26 minutes ago, impulse said:

Watch "Becoming Brigitte". If it's false (and I am wide open to that possibility), it's one of the best documented and footnoted hoaxes in history.

Don't bother responding unless you actually watch it... That would be like going to a book club discussion without reading the book.

The convicted individuals engaged in cyber bullying not investigative journalism, nor political discourse. Their activity was targeted defamation intended to inflict reputational damage. Circulating false images that they fabricated demonstrated ill intent. There was no legal justification for what they did.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Not on the interwebs.

But when you get to a court of law, don't you need to prove that people are lying in order to prosecute or sue them for defamation?

Brian Chai wrote an excellent article about the slippery slope in Western Journal, that's also being picked up across the conservative media. Here's a snippet:

Let’s be clear: The claim that French first lady Brigitte Macron is secretly a man is absurd, unserious, and a distraction from real problems.

......

If the threshold for state intervention is whether a powerful public figure can emotionally “ignore” speech, then free expression becomes entirely contingent on temperament. Had Brigitte Macron possessed thicker skin, would no crime have occurred? If the remarks had been laughed off instead of internalized, would the same words suddenly become lawful? This is psychological guesswork masquerading as “law.”

Worse still, this standard is infinitely expandable. Any politician, spouse, or government-adjacent figure can now claim subjective distress as grounds to silence critics, satirists, or online provocateurs. Once personal discomfort becomes the metric for criminality, speech rights no longer belong to the public — they belong to the most thin-skinned people closest to power.

On a related note, imagine what would happen if Trump started prosecuting people for ridiculing him or calling him a convicted rapist... Would that be okay?

She doesn't need to prove anything. She's officially a women per her birth certificate, which has been registered by the French administration.

4 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

This was not about free speech. It was cyber bullying. The intentional harassment of the couple. The convicted knowingly used false information to attack the Macrons. Wrapping themselves in the claim of free speech failed because the claims that were made were intentionally false.

If your photo and name was published and then circulated along with the claim that you engaged in child sex and traveled to Thailand to specifically have sex with underage children, you might be upset. You would try and get it to stop saying it was damaging your reputation. Your previous argument holds that because you are in Thailand allows your presence to be questioned. Why would a US national travel to a SE Asian country? You could just as easily purchase Phad Thai at a local shop or worship at a wat online. Using your argument, the burden is now on you to prove that you do not travel to Thailand to have sex with children, Once your ophoto and name was published and repeatedly circulated, the damage would be done. And even if the the claim was shown to be false and people persisted in spreading the lie, your argument would hold that it was ok because it was free speech. There is no justification in knowingly spreading false information with the intent to harm a person's reputation. It is a wrongful act and is not protected in law. An apology after the fact would be useless since the harm would have been done.

Those falsely accused of being paedophiles never recover from it , never, there will always be whispers from the "no smoke without fire brigade" or the assertion that they "got away with it" they are treated as guilty before they clear their name and indeed afterwards. Their life, is effectively ruined from the moment the accusation is made.

How on earth can you compare malicious false accusations of child abuse to a few hurty words which amounts to nothing more than "misgendering"

31 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Those falsely accused of being paedophiles never recover from it , never, there will always be whispers from the "no smoke without fire brigade" or the assertion that they "got away with it" they are treated as guilty before they clear their name and indeed afterwards. Their life, is effectively ruined from the moment the accusation is made.

How on earth can you compare malicious false accusations of child abuse to a few hurty words which amounts to nothing more than "misgendering"

You are ignoring what occurred. It was a persistent campaign of abuse that attacked her children and her husband as well as Brigitte herself. You dismiss the cyber bullying as "hurty words", but acknowledge the damage a false accusation can make. The people who were doing this were motivated by personal hate and bloodlust. Once exposed and held accountable they came up with every feeble excuse imaginable, one of them being that they didn't think it was that bad. They were so brave that none wanted to make the claims under their own name. Now that one of the uglier bullies is exposed, she is pleading to be left alone.

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

You are ignoring what occurred. It was a persistent campaign of abuse that attacked her children and her husband as well as Brigitte herself. You dismiss the cyber bullying as "hurty words", but acknowledge the damage a false accusation can make. The people who were doing this were motivated by personal hate and bloodlust. Once exposed and held accountable they came up with every feeble excuse imaginable, one of them being that they didn't think it was that bad. They were so brave that none wanted to make the claims under their own name. Now that one of the uglier bullies is exposed, she is pleading to be left alone.

never the less somebody alleging she is a man will not have anything like the same impact on her life or long term consequences that she would suffer had she been accused of child abuse