Abstract:
Freedom of expression should be considered the cornerstone of democratic principles and human rights. This right is so important that in the judicial practice of the Constitutional Council of France, it is regarded as a fundamental freedom so clear that its existence can be seen as a fundamental guarantee for respecting the rights and freedoms of others and guaranteeing national sovereignty. In this article, we become acquainted with the dimensions of freedom of expression in France, which is considered an appropriate subject for comparative study, as the author initially examines the historical course of the government's position toward this fundamental right, emphasizing the French Revolution, and addresses the extent of intervention by public authorities in freedom of expression regarding audiovisual media and social free discussions during each period.
Machine summary:
The Council's ruling dated October 10 and 11, 1984, regarding the law limiting concentration and ensuring financial transparency and pluralism of press enterprises, stated that "readers of the press, who are in fact the subject of the provision contained in Article 11 of the 1789 Declaration, must be able to freely exercise their right of choice in using the press, without private interests or public power being able to substitute their specific choice or direct their choice toward market interests".
Such exceptions must be provided for by law (meaning they must be established by a general norm, whether in writing or through judicial practice, so as to possess the characteristics of accessibility and predictability); these are objectives recognized under Clause 2 of Article 10, such as (national security, territorial integrity, or public safety, defense of order or prevention of crime, protection of health or morals, protection of reputation and rights of others, preservation of confidential information, guaranteeing the independence and impartiality of judicial authorities) and exceptions that "are necessary in a democratic society for the achievement of its objectives".
Although protecting individuals' private lives is justified (despite the fact that this faces problems, including that in some cases it is difficult to distinguish between private life and an individual's social functions, or that sexual crimes committed against minors or endangering them may be considered matters related to private life), and the failure to impute an accusation that has been cleared as a result of an appeal involves respect for judicial rulings, other exceptional cases (the impossibility of proving the truth of the imputation) create problems by limiting the scope of public debate topics: for example, regarding the ruling of November 7, 1989, the question arises whether it is correct for the court to refuse to accept evidence showing that the plaintiff, who was one of the presidential candidates, had engaged in torture during the Algerian War?
(
, 
, 
)
