Sponsor Advertisement
French Presidential Couple Sue Candace Owens for Defamation in U.S. Court

French Presidential Couple Sue Candace Owens for Defamation in U.S. Court

French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, have filed a defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens in Delaware, accusing her of spreading false claims about Brigitte's gender and profiting from the allegations.

French President Emmanuel Macron and First Lady Brigitte Macron have initiated legal proceedings against American conservative commentator Candace Owens. The lawsuit was filed on Wednesday in a Delaware court, where the Macrons are challenging Owens over her dissemination of unsubstantiated claims that Brigitte Macron was born male. The 218-page complaint details how Owens has capitalized on these allegations for personal gain.

The controversy began when Owens made repeated public statements, including on her social media platforms and podcast interviews, insisting that Brigitte Macron was actually Jean-Michel Trogneux, the President’s purported brother, who underwent gender reassignment. Owens went as far as to stake her "entire professional reputation" on these claims. Despite receiving multiple cease-and-desist letters and being informed that the information was false, Owens persisted in her assertions.

The Macrons, through their legal counsel, Thomas Clare of the defamation-focused firm Clare Locke LLP, have expressed their commitment to attending the trial in person in Delaware to seek punitive damages. Clare emphasized the importance the Macrons place on defending their reputations, highlighting Owens' refusal to retract her statements and her mockery of the couple in response to legal warnings.

This legal action is notable as it involves foreign heads of state pursuing a defamation case on American soil, where the bar for proving libel is set high for public figures. The Macrons must demonstrate that Owens acted with "actual malice," which entails knowingly propagating falsehoods or exhibiting a reckless disregard for the truth.

The lawsuit addresses not only the false allegations about Brigitte Macron's gender but also conspiracy theories Owens has spread about President Macron. These include claims that he was a subject of the CIA's MKUltra mind control program and that his relationship with Brigitte, who was his high school teacher, began inappropriately when he was a minor.

The Macrons have refuted these allegations, clarifying that their relationship began with an intellectual connection and remained lawful, turning romantic only years after their first meeting. Despite direct communication from the Macrons to Owens in December 2023, denying any statutory rape and affirming Brigitte Macron's gender, Owens continued to promote her claims, leading to the current legal battle.

This is not the first time the Macrons have resorted to legal action to protect their reputations. In 2022, Brigitte Macron successfully filed a defamation complaint in France against individuals who propagated similar gender identity rumors, resulting in a guilty verdict and fines.

The rumors initially emerged during Macron's 2017 presidential campaign and have been amplified on social media in recent years. President Macron has publicly denounced these rumors as "sexist" attacks on a "powerful woman."

The case has attracted significant media attention, with some commentators suggesting that the lawsuit may be a "spectacular PR blunder" by the Macrons. Nevertheless, the couple's determination to confront these allegations in court underscores their stance against defamation and misinformation.

Advertisement

The Flipside: Different Perspectives

Progressive View

The lawsuit filed by President Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte Macron against Candace Owens is a bold move to uphold the truth and combat the spread of harmful conspiracy theories. From a progressive standpoint, this legal challenge is a fight against the weaponization of misinformation, which has become rampant in today's political climate.

The propagation of baseless rumors about individuals' personal lives, particularly when it involves gender identity, is not only defamatory but also perpetuates harmful stereotypes and bigotry. The Macrons' decision to take legal action is an affirmation of their dignity and a stance against the vilification often faced by public figures, especially women in power.

Progressives believe in protecting individuals from slander and supporting the right to privacy. The lawsuit underscores the necessity for public discourse to be grounded in fact, not fiction. By confronting Owens in court, the Macrons are defending not just their own reputations but also setting a precedent for holding those accountable who use their platforms to disseminate falsehoods.

This case also touches upon the broader issue of the impact of social media on politics and society. The ease with which misinformation can be spread demands a strong legal framework to deter defamation and protect the public from deceit. The Macrons' pursuit of justice in the U.S. courts reaffirms the universal values of truth and respect that transcend national boundaries.

Conservative View

The defamation lawsuit filed by President Emmanuel Macron and his wife against Candace Owens is a testament to the importance of free speech and its limitations. As conservatives, we champion the right to voice opinions and challenge the status quo. However, the right to free speech does not include the right to spread defamatory falsehoods. The Macrons' decision to file a lawsuit in the United States, a country that deeply values free speech, demonstrates their belief in the integrity of the American judicial system.

While some may view this legal action as an overreach by foreign dignitaries, it is essential to recognize the principle of personal accountability. Owens' repeated claims about the Macrons, despite being debunked, highlight the need for a robust response to protect reputations from baseless attacks. It is a reminder that public figures, regardless of nationality, deserve recourse against malicious slander.

Moreover, the conservative perspective acknowledges the significance of a fair trial and the high standard set by the "actual malice" criterion. This ensures that free speech is balanced with the necessity for truth in public discourse. The outcome of this case may serve as a benchmark for future defamation suits, reinforcing the message that freedom of speech carries with it the weight of responsibility.

Common Ground

Despite differing political ideologies, both conservatives and progressives can agree on the fundamental importance of truth in public discourse. The Macron defamation case against Candace Owens highlights the shared value placed on the integrity of information and the protection of individuals' reputations from unfounded attacks. Both sides recognize the need for a legal system that allows for the defense against slander while upholding the right to free speech. This case may serve as common ground for a bipartisan dialogue on how to balance freedom of expression with the necessity of accountability in the age of social media.