#1 Anne-Sophie Leclère’s Meme
Mode of expression: Photomontage and captions
Publication: Facebook
Region: Europe (France)
Relevant dates: October 2013 (publication); September 2016 (decision)
Outcome: Suspended fine of 3000 EUR
Judicial body: Paris Criminal Court
Type of law: Criminal Law
Themes: Hate speech / Racial insult / Discrimination
#2 Minute’s Editorial
Mode of expression: Title
Publication: Minute’s weekly editorial
Region: Europe (France)
Relevant dates: 14 November 2013 (publication); 9 January 2018 (decision)
Outcome: Fine of 10,000 EUR
Judicial body: Paris Criminal Court
Type of law: Criminal Law
Themes: Hate speech / Racial insult / discrimination
#3 Doctored Charlie Hebdo Cartoon
Mode of expression: Cartoon
Publication: Blog
Region: Europe (France)
Relevant dates: 28 July 2014 (publication); 9 January 2018 (final decision)
Outcome: Court of Cassation overturns fine against blogger
Judicial body: Court of Cassation (Highest Court)
Type of law: Criminal Law
Themes: Incitement to hatred / Racial insult / Discrimination / Decontextualization
Christiane Taubira was born in French Guiana. She served as Minister of Justice of France under President François Hollande between 2012 and 2016. During that period, she was the target of racist insults published in the media that also gave rise to lawsuits for incitement to discrimination and hatred. Among the chain of controversial publications, a cartoon by Charb published in Charlie Hebdo was edited and used in a different context. Instead of denouncing racism, the cartoon was used to criticize a court’s ruling against a racist publication.
Context
- In October 2013, Anne-Sophie Leclère, a former candidate of the far-right French party Front National, posted a meme on her Facebook account comparing Taubira to a monkey.
- In November 2013, the French far-right weekly Minute published an editorial titled “Clever as a monkey, Taubira finds the banana!” (Maligne comme un singe Taubira retrouve la banane!).
- After Minute’s editorial, Charlie Hebdo published a cartoon by Charb in which Taubira was caricatured as a monkey. At the time, Charb argued: “To denounce racism, sometimes it is necessary to represent the shocking image we want to denounce…”.
- André Zuliani, a right-wing French politician, published Charb’s cartoon in his blog but changed its title (Rassemblement bleu raciste: Racist Blue Rally) to “Parody of justice.” His intention was to criticize both the condemnation that Leclère had received for her Facebook post and the absence of condemnation for Charb’s cartoon.
Legal cases
With the exception of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon, all of the above-listed publications were sued for incitement to racial discrimination and hatred.
Anne-Sophie Leclère’s case
After publishing the meme to her Facebook page, and given the outrage that her actions sparked, Anne-Sophie Leclère attempted to defend herself by claiming it was humor. The Guyanese Walwari movement, co-founded by Taubira in the 1990s, promptly filed a complaint at the Cayenne criminal court. In July 2014, Leclère was sentenced to nine months in prison and five years of ineligibility. However, the judgment was later overturned on appeal, with Walwari’s actions being deemed invalid. Concurrently, a separate case unfolded in Paris. In September 2016, the Paris Criminal Court found Leclère guilty of the crime of public insult and imposed a suspended fine of 3,000 euros.
Minute’s case
Three different anti-racism organizations filed a complaint against the weekly Minute. The journal rejected the accusation of racism, arguing that it was merely a play on words based on two French expressions and that it was meant to be a criticism of Taubira’s political decisions rather than an expression of racial prejudice. In October 2014, the Paris Criminal Court found Minute guilty of racial insult and ordered the magazine to pay a fine of 10,000 euros for violating French laws against racism and incitement to racial hatred.
André Zuliani’s case
In July 2016, the Correctional Court of Carcassonne found André Zuliani guilty of incitement to hatred or violence based on origin, ethnicity, nation, race or religion. He was sentenced to a fine of 1,500 euros, of which 1,000 were suspended. In January 2017, the Montpellier Court of Appeal confirmed the ruling, stating that by titling his blog post “Parody of justice” and by using Charlie Hebdo’s cartoon, Zuliani intended to harm the reputation of Taubira and incite racial hatred. Zuliani declared that reposting the cartoon on his blog was a mistake. He also asserted that he did not intend to attack the integrity of Taubira but sought instead to express his anger about Leclère’s “disproportionate conviction.” The defendant appealed the ruling, arguing that: 1) the publication itself did not constitute incitement to racial hatred without explicit encouragement, 2) the president of the court showed bias by stating that the defendant had racist intentions before the trial concluded, and 3) the fine imposed was not properly justified based on the defendant’s resources and responsibilities. In January 2018, the case was addressed by the Court of Cassation (Highest Court), which found that, while the cartoon might constitute a racial insult, it did not, in itself or in context, contain an implicit or explicit call for discrimination, hatred or violence as required by law. As a result, the Court of Appeal’s decision was overturned for misinterpreting the law and the principle of freedom of expression.
Analysis
Focusing on the final outcomes of the three sued publications helps to explain why the Court of Cassation dismissed Zuliani’s case. The first two publications (Leclère’s post and Minute’s editorial) targeted the Minister of Justice at the time, and their authors were found guilty of racial insult and incitement to hatred, while the Charlie Hebdo cartoon and Zuliani’s subverted use in a blog did not directly target Taubira but other events linked to her.
Charb’s cartoon, however deserves greater attention. Depicting the Minister of Justice as a monkey can be considered shocking, which is in accordance with Charlie Hebdo’s provocative and often controversial style. Zoomorphism applied to politicians has a long tradition in the history of caricature in Western countries. Nevertheless, in this specific case, the target of the cartoon was the political party created by the far-right leader Marine Le Pen: Rassemblement bleu marine, now National Rally. Replacing the word “marine” (navy) with “raciste” establishes an explicit link between the attribute of racism and the political party. The symbol of the party in blue and red placed on the left of the cartoon helps to establish the intended association. However, Charb’s cartoon also led to controversy among those who interpreted the cartoon in a literal manner or, having understood the ironic purpose, did not appreciate the depiction. Ironic texts function by echoing somebody’s opinion, social norms, values or beliefs, and are associated with an attitude of derision and/or disapproval. In this case, by depicting the Minister of Justice as an animal, the cartoonist echoes far-right positions while at the same time taking distance from them. The image is contradicted by its title.
By publishing the cartoon with a different title (“Parodie de Justice”), Zuliani distorted cartoonist’s argument, using the image against the court that had condemned Leclère and, possibly by extension, the judicial system as a whole. Zuliani subverted the cartoon’s original meaning and intention by breaking the visual-verbal contradiction of the original.
One last issue worth analysing is the “it’s just humor” defense used in relation to the first two events. Both the politician Leclère and Minute’s editorial staff attempted to sidestep accountability for the offensive content published. This claim is often used – as it also seems to be the case here – to make critics feel as if they were overreacting or that they lack a sense of humor, thereby discrediting their concerns.
The contrasting outcomes of these cases – from convictions for overt racial insults to the protection of satirical works – underscore the nuanced approach required in navigating issues of free speech and hate speech in modern democracies. Moreover, these incidents reveal the potential for misinterpretation and misuse of satirical content, particularly when removed from its original context. As societies continue to grapple with these challenges, the balance between protecting minority groups from hate speech and preserving freedom of expression remains a delicate and evolving legal and social issue.
Sources and further reading:
Veale, T., Feyaerts, K. & Brône, G. (2006). The cognitive mechanisms of adversarial humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(3): 305–39.
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge University Press.