Posted on 08/21/2025 4:26:10 AM PDT by dennisw
French president Emmanuel Macron has claimed the lawsuit he and his wife have filed against right-wing American influencer Candace Owens was put forward to 'defend his honour.'
Since last year, 36-year-old Owens has espoused a crackpot theory to her four million YouTube subscribers that Macron's 72-year-old wife Brigitte was born a man.
Owens launched a podcast series called Becoming Brigitte, in which she delves into the conspiracy. She claims that Brigitte was born under the name 'Jean-Michel Trogneux.'
Her actions led Macron and his wife to file a lawsuit in the US against Owens in July, claiming that they had 'suffered substantial reputational damage' and spent 'considerable sums of money to correct the public record.'
Macron told Paris Match that while he was warned that taking legal action against Owens may result in the '"Streisand effect", drawing even more attention to these lies... It grew so big in the United States that we had to respond.
'It is a matter of upholding the truth. It’s about defending my honour. Because this is nonsense.'
He also hit out at the Trump administration, dismissing arguments that his lawsuits was an impingement on free speech.
Referring to the Trump administration's decision to ban some mainstream outlets, he said: 'It is not freedom of speech to want to prevent the truth from being restored. Those who talk about this supposed freedom of speech are the people who ban journalists from the Oval Office. I don’t accept that.'
Instead, he claims, Owens 'knew very well that she was using false news to cause damage, in the service of an ideology and with established connections with the far Right.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
What does this have to do with Trump? Trump hasn’t defended this Jew-hating grifter and fraudster for her absurd allegations. In fact, she has come out and complained that Trump hasn’t defended her for “free speech.” Her rich pedo husband can easily pay the bill anyway.
Candice Owens is openly blasting her accusations from the rooftops after being warned of potential defamation.
Legally, even under the defamation standard for public figures under New York Times v. Sulllivan, she's in big trouble.
My point is that what was “whispered” would be libel in today’s world.
“So and so whispered such and such to me about so and so.”
If they had today’s cell phones they could have proved the “whispers” happened.
We are litigation happy these days.
This stuff has been washing across Western society for a century and more. Example:
"Right You Are—If You Think You Are, play in three acts by Luigi Pirandello, produced in Italian in 1917 as Così è (se vi pare) and published the following year. The title is sometimes translated as Right You Are (If You Think So), among other variations. This work, like almost all of Pirandello's plays, contrasts art and life, demonstrating that truth is subjective and relative."All the now-Supreme Court Democrat proved was that she was politically correct and elusive, in the face of simple questions.
During the second day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings Tuesday, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson refused to define what a “woman” is, deferring instead to scientific experts.Thus is the Court now populated by one Democrat ideologue, proven willing to evade and lie for the Party.When asked to define “woman” by Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn, she replied, “I can't…I'm not a biologist.” Blackburn shot back, “The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can't give me a definition?”
“Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there's a dispute about a definition, people make arguments and I look at the law and I decide,” Jackson added, reiterating the methodical judicial approach she has historically applied.
Source: Judge Jackson Refuses to Define ‘Woman’ during Confirmation Hearing: ‘I'm Not a Biologist’ Yahoo / National Review, 23 March 2022
Candace has done some good work. Blexit was a worthwhile campaign, even if it didn’t have the success we’d hoped.
This charge seems crazy, and her ranting about Jews have discredited her. She needs to stop saying ridiculous, offensive things.
Instantly revealing to the world that her thought process flows from her leftist ideology.
I don't think that is a bad thing in this particular context. When people say deliberately horrible things about other people without evidence, they should be liable.
I also think that should - and eventually will - be expanded to include deep fakes that take the images and voices of other people and have them say/do things that harm the reputation of that person.
It is going to get really crazy with deep fakes.
Each year they will get better and harder to detect.
A generation from now it may be totally impossible to figure out what is going on....
Not quite.
The Macrons will have first-person, admissible evidence that Ms. Macron was born female - her own testimony. May also have a birth certificate, documents from the birth of her own children, etc..
What first-person, admissible evidence does Ms. Owen have that isn't true? Absent some kind of affirmative, admissible evidence on her side, I think it is unlikely a judge would conclude that the Macrons have to submit a DNA test to prove something for which there is no reasonable factual dispute.
I agree, and that really is extraordinarily dangerous. A large part of civilization is built upon individual honor, integrity, and reputation, and the ability to trust your own eyes. If the Deep fakers make it so that they can essentially have anyone saying and doing anything they want, and have it believed, all of us are at risk.
I do think those kind of deep fakes are going to become illegal at some point.
I think the “Great Delusion” in Revelations will be AI-generated.
Betting on the Jews-Israel-Gaza trifecta works out well for Candace and Tucker Qatarlson. Well, meaning more clicks, more views, more internet fame & status. All translating into money trickling in now and long term.
The Macrons can win the legal war, but lose overall by being tarred with such a dispute. The average adult mind is not as strong as yours. It will continue to believe that Mrs. Macron looks old, dried up, and mannish. Therefore it is likely that Candace is correct. That she was born male.
I don't think so. When the case ends, the story will be that Owens is a nut, and that Ms. Macron is a woman. Likely be a lot of backlash in her favor from mocking a post-menopausal woman for not looking sufficiently feminine.
On the Internet being a kook is a positive attribute.
Lol.
What must be avoided at all costs is being boring....
IIRC, the Westboro creeps weren’t uttering defamatory comments about specific people. “The catholic kid who sued CBS NBC etc” was defamed specifically by name.
I agree on Macron’s crypto-faggotry. I have always been amused by how precisely coifed he is, to make his bald spots less visible. His haircuts are at least $300. Even though he probably does not pay, being President of France and all.
So, does this mean he believes it's "dishonorable" to be a tranny?
Isn’t it amazing that a world leader is spending this much time and energy attempting to refute something that the normally-crackpot-promoting Daily Mail calls a crackpot theory? When was the last time a world leader did something like that to silence a critic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.