Hanouna Faces €12,000 Fine for Insulting French MP
A Paris court is considering a €12,000 fine against popular French television host Cyril hanouna for a series of insults directed at a member of parliament during a live broadcast of his show, “Touche pas à mon poste” (TPMP). The case, which concluded its hearing on november 10, 2022, pits the outspoken host against louis Boyard, a 24-year-old MP from the Val-de-Marne region, who filed a complaint for public insults against a person holding public office.
The court focused on five specific insults uttered by Hanouna during the broadcast: “you idiot,” “you’re an idiot,” “you’re a jerk,” “you’re a buffoon,” adn “you’re a piece of shit.” One of Boyard’s lawyers described the repeated use of derogatory remarks as “the Hanouna method,” designed to “anesthetize” his target. These insults followed Boyard’s criticism of media magnates, specifically mentioning Vincent Bolloré, the owner of C8, the channel that broadcasts TPMP.
“Almighty Power” vs. ”Media Stunt”
Boyard testified that the insults, delivered “in front of the whole of France,” left him feeling humiliated. “I believe that the will [through these insults] is to belittle, humiliate. We feel a feeling of omnipotence,” he stated, expressing disappointment at Hanouna’s absence from the proceedings. The court is expected to deliver its judgment on February 20, 2025.
Hanouna’s defense team, though, characterized the incident as a “premeditated provocation” and a “media stunt” by Boyard. They argued that the MP remained unfazed throughout the exchange, suggesting a calculated attempt to gain publicity. One lawyer claimed the sequence was “a dream, a miracle, it happened exactly as he hoped, he was delighted.”
The MP’s Status in Question
Boyard’s emotional response during the court hearing,where he was visibly shaken while watching the nine-minute broadcast,underscored the impact of the incident. He emphasized that what disturbed him most was Hanouna’s attempt to censor his political views.”I could not explain my reasoning, I am a deputy, an elected official of the nation, to present political ideas and I have in front of me a press manager, a presenter, who tells me that I have not the right to say that,” Boyard stated.
The case raises broader questions about the relationship between media personalities and elected officials in France, and the potential for abuse of power within the media landscape. The court’s decision will be closely watched for its implications on freedom of speech and the responsibilities of public figures.
French TV Host Slapped with Record €3.5 million Fine for Attacking Politician
French television personality Cyril Hanouna is facing the consequences of his controversial on-air remarks, after a French court levied a record-breaking €3.5 million fine against Canal+ for his insults directed at French politician Louis Boyard. The ruling, handed down by the Conseil d’État, underscores the ongoing debate surrounding free speech and the responsibilities of public figures in France.
The hefty fine stems from comments made by Hanouna during his popular talk show. While the exact nature of the insults isn’t explicitly detailed in all reports, the severity was enough to trigger the substantial penalty. The Conseil d’État upheld Arcom’s (the French media regulator) decision, confirming the gravity of the offense.
“My political remarks,” Hanouna reportedly stated, though the full context of this quote remains unclear. The statement suggests a degree of acknowledgement of the controversial nature of his comments, but doesn’t necessarily indicate remorse.
The case hinges on a crucial legal question: did Hanouna insult Boyard as a person, or specifically target his role as a deputy? The prosecution and defense lawyers both focused on this distinction, referencing previous legal precedents. Stéphane Hasbanian,a lawyer involved in the case,highlighted the Nadine Morano vs. Guy Bedos case, where an insult against Morano was dismissed as her elected official status wasn’t deemed central to the offense. This legal precedent underscores the complexities of determining the line between personal attacks and criticism of political actions.
The ruling has meaningful implications for media personalities and public discourse in France. It serves as a stark reminder of the potential legal consequences of inflammatory language, even in the context of a lively television debate. The case also raises questions about the balance between freedom of expression and the protection of public officials from unwarranted attacks.
