Question : should we penalise the internet websites that seek to convince women to give up their freedom to abort ? In other words, does it rock a good slap to the clique of fake-ass, under, outside neutral with green number to the key, make pressure so that they do not put an end to their pregnancy ? It is in any case the object of the proposed legislation is socialist, adopted Thursday in the first reading (1) aimed at expanding the criminal offence of obstructing the ABORTION (which was initially the commandos of the “Let them live” and “company”) to internet sites misleading. Reason : the Web has become a privileged means to inform on his health as well as on a maternity not wanted. Sites and anti-ABORTION that proliferate have c leverly managed to trade to a moral discourse and religious for the benefit of the arguments pseudo-scientific about the risks incurred by women, as the leading jurist, Diane Roman, professor of public law at the university of Tours (Indre-et-Loire).
Face-to-Face, two camps. A left-hand prompt-to-rely – many times – in the chamber this beloved Simone de Beauvoir (“never forget that it will be enough of a crisis political, economic or religious to ensure that the rights of women are questioned. These rights are never acquired. You will need to stay vigilant throughout your life”) and, of course, Simone Veil, which passed with the votes of the opposition (the ones to the left) the law on ABORTION for more than forty years (read page 14). In defense, Catherine Coutelle, socialist and a co-author of the proposed law : “The battle of the information [on the question of abortion, editor's note] is central.”
In support of, Laurence Rossignol, minister of Families, Children and women’s Rights : “A right that cannot be freely exercised is not a right.” And add : “Everyone is free to say his hostility, provided that this is done in all honesty.” But also to circumscribe this freedom : “freedom of opinion is not right to lie”…
in the Face of such an argument, the right has found his point of attack : this dear freedom of expression. Leaves to appeal (as Dominique Tian, The Republicans) to the intellectual (left) Noam Chomsky : “If freedom of expression is limited to the ideas that suit us, this is not freedom of expression.” And torpedo : “The sites to express an opinion and it is their right. [...] That is shocking, it is your vision of the moralizing, the givers of lessons, which decrees what is good and what is not. It is unbearable and it is dangerous for democracy.”
Freedom of expression, freedom of opinion… For the opponents of the text – we save it here (read below), about the fringe very reaction outright anti-ABORTION, the case is heard, an appeal against this project “it is unconstitutional” will not fail to be filed. Seriously, wanting to punish sites, anti-ABORTION, who walk in the dark and engage in hoaxes (fake information, testimonials, questionable…) in order to impede the freedom of choice of women, is it repressive ? If the spirit of the text is clear, and it does nothing to suppress the expression of opinions antiavortement, his statement a little too general installation of the case of conscience, including on the left. As each time that a text represents a balance between the protection of individuals and freedom of expression – the Gayssot law prohibiting the about revisionists denying the Holocaust had raised the same questions.
To address the sites which broadcast false information, the authors of the text decided to expand the criminal offence of obstructing the ABORTION (article 2223-2 of the code of public health). In 1993, the law Neiertz places outside the law activists antiavortement that physically restrict the access to the institutions where they practice, ABORTION (2). In 2001, the new law that broadens the offence of obstruction of the “moral pressure and psychological”. today, it is therefore a question of creating a third form of the criminal offence of obstructing : the Internet broadcast of“the allegations, indications or presentations false and likely to mislead intentionally, error” on ABORTION. Problem : to read the single article of the proposed law, any site that is anti-ABORTION would be covered. And not only “those who advance masked”, as the defending its promoters. Perhaps this is where the shoe pinches.
“Laws of exception”
“It [creates] a previous attack on the freedom of opinion and expression, unacceptable”), warning in a statement that the Quadrature du Net association, an association classified to the left very vigilant on the expression of free opinions. the “The creation of an offence for provision of content, even if they are doubtful, heart-rending [...], door unquestionably impair such freedom of expression. However, this last is not done only for those with whom we agree”, adds the association who notably fought the law information from the executive socialist. the “I understand the government’s intention, but it seems to me that the anti-sites anti-ABORTION should choose the field of politics, not that of the criminal law”, resumes the lawyer Diane Roman, before attacking the substance of the topic : should we ban the misinformation, the lies ? the “In this case to stop the slider ? asks the lawyer. in Should we ban all the sites complotistes ? Those who peddle rumours ? Those who question the merits of vaccines or the routine screening of breast cancer ?”
Legally, the way is narrow : it is, of course, has the right to lie in the public space (and luckily), but what about the lies that intentionally cause damage very real ? the “The false statements that change the course of the Stock market today can be sanctioned”, reports that Nicolas Hervieu, of the Centre for research and studies on fundamental rights (Credof), at the university of Nanterre. “there are issues that justify emergency laws, states bluntly Charles-Emmanuel Soussen, lawyer specializing in right of the press. in Penalize the racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, incitement to suicide – as is the case in the French law – or the dissemination of false information about ABORTION… topics like these don’t happen all of the four mornings.”
And then, as noted by counsel, the judges, as each time that it is restricting the freedom of expression, a decision on a case by case basis… As they have already done when réacs have called for the censorship of films or posters a little too free with Jesus to their taste.
(1) By the whole of the left, and a majority of centrists.
(2) Punishable by up to two years in prison and 30,000 euros fine.