|
When Brigitte Macron first sued Candace Owens, the case looked (like it) contained, one public figure, one commentator, one dispute over speech. Jurors could have focused narrowly on facts, intent and credibility. That equation has now changed, dramatically. In recent days, French citizens have faced criminal penalties, arrests, suspended sentences and account bans for online remarks, some mocking, some crude, some plainly joking. That shift changes public perception overnight. What once looked like a private defamation claim now looks like a coordinated effort, civil pressure paired with criminal punishment. For an American jury, that matters. Jurors are deeply skeptical of government power used to police speech, especially when it crosses borders. Is this about truth, or control? Is this about reputation, or intimidation? Even people who disagree with Candace Owens may recoil at the spectacle. The moment criminal law entered the picture, the narrative flipped. In my view, that development severely weakens the case and makes dismissal far more likely. |
