By Sammy Westfall
The Macrons are fighting the defamation claims in France’s criminal courts.
“While France prioritizes reputation protections, the U.S. champions a national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,’” said Jacob Mchangama, executive director of the Future of Free Speech think tank at Vanderbilt University, quoting the landmark First Amendment decision in New York Times v. Sullivan.
As the U.S. case moves through Delaware’s legal system, the Macrons would face a number of First Amendment-based obstacles that they would not have encountered in a French court, Mchangama said. For instance, as public figures, the Macrons would need to demonstrate that Owens issued false “facts” with actual malice. “Owens may argue that her comments were opinion, political commentary, satire or mistaken belief,” he said.
Read More
Jacob Mchangama is the Founder and Executive Director of The Future of Free Speech. He is also a research professor at Vanderbilt University and a Senior Fellow at The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).