Will journalists, citizens, associations still be able to film and broadcast live images of police officers or gendarmes in action? This is one of the questions raised by the LREM-Agir bill relating to “Global security”.
Focused on private security and the strengthening of the municipal police, it also includes articles aimed at further protecting the police. Controversial, article 24 prohibits the dissemination of the image “or any other element of identification” of the police officers and gendarmes in intervention “with the aim of undermining” their “physical or psychic integrity”.
The faces of policemen soon blurred
The goal is to sanction malicious intentions
, said Jean-Michel Fauvergue, the deputy LREM rapporteur of the law and former boss of the Raid, an elite unit of the police, during the examination of the text in committee. But defenders of public freedoms, journalists, media or anti-police violence activists are worried about an unprecedented questioning of the right to inform
.
The words of the Minister of the Interior, Gérald Darmanin, fuel the ambiguity: I made a promise, that of no longer being able to broadcast the faces of the police and gendarmes on social networks. This promise will be kept
, he said on November 2 on BFM. On Friday he reiterated that he “Will have to blur the faces of the police and gendarmes”
before posting the images on the Internet. We will have debates […] We will have the opportunity to improve the text if necessary
, he added on Franceinfo. If it is necessary to blur, as requested by the Alliance Police union, a live broadcast will no longer be possible.
For or against?
Here are three points of view on this text: that of the co-rapporteur of the text, Alice Thourot, LREM MP. That of lawyer Arié Halimi, member of the Human Rights League, very critical. And finally that of the secretary general of Alliance Police, Frédéric Lagache, who believes that the text does not go far enough …
For Alice Thourot, LREM deputy reporter of the text: “No ambiguity, journalists can continue to work as before”
“The objective is to punish behaviors that exist today and which have serious consequences for police officers, gendarmes and their relatives: the grazing of their faces, relayed on social networks, with calls to hatred or to rot their lives. They work with their faces uncovered, it is our duty to protect them when they are victims of this type of behavior. But the text does not call into question the right to inform at all. Journalists and citizens will still be able to film live, like today. There is no ambiguity. The blurring requirement is not in the text.
What is sanctioned by this article is dissemination with the aim of harming the physical or mental integrity of the agent, so it is dissemination with malicious intent (intimidation, threats etc. ) which must be characterized before a judge. This will only happen after the fact. A journalist or a citizen who considers himself to be in an information process will be able to broadcast live live what he will film in a demonstration, including if there are excesses, violence … And if violence is committed, this should be sent to the public prosecutor for prosecution. “
For Arié Halimi, lawyer, member of the Human Rights League: “A serious violation of the right to inform”
“This article 24 of the Global Security bill is the end of the dissemination of images of identifiable police officers on any medium. And in particular live, as is done today, in demonstrations, continuous news channels. This was repeated recently by Gérald Darmanin, it is his objective.
Officially, the text prohibits the dissemination of images of identifiable police officers “with malicious intent”. But, in fact, this malicious intent will be appreciated by the court. Beforehand, we are certain that the police will consider themselves authorized to arrest and take into custody a person filming.
However, French law, European conventions, case law defend this right to information. It was he who made it possible to reveal a certain number of police violence. There is a manifestly disproportionate character between the objective pursued (to protect the police officers, while we do not know how many were actually attacked or threatened after their faces were broadcast on social networks), and the massive attack on public freedoms that it generates. It will also accentuate the conflict between the security forces and the citizens. This is all the more surprising since there are already three offenses in criminal law, which cover exactly those described in the article under debate. “
For Frédéric Lagache, general secretary of the Alliance police union: “A text that does not yet go far enough”
“For us, this text is only a first step, but it does not go far enough yet. The dissemination of images of police officers or gendarmes is punishable. in order to undermine their integrity
. However, it will be complicated to prove this intention to harm and it can be contested. In addition, before the case arrives in court, the video will have plenty of time to be broadcast and relayed.
We, what we want, and have been asking for since 2018, is the obligation to blur the faces of the police, regardless of any consideration of intent to harm. There would be no problem of interpretation. Our will is to protect the security forces. Because there are too many examples, even if I don’t have precise figures, of colleagues who found themselves on social networks, then, then forced to move because they were threatened.
The obligation to blur would prevent the broadcast of live images? Maybe, even if our aim is not to hinder freedom of the press. Only to secure the police and gendarmes. If a person films a crime, if there is no intention to harm, the logic is not to broadcast this video on social networks, but to transmit it to the public prosecutor. That is a civic commitment. “
– .
