admin
The bizarre legal battle between France’s first couple and American commentator Candace Owens has escalated into a transatlantic spectacle. Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron filed a defamation suit in Delaware after Owens pushed a conspiracy alleging the first lady was born a man, and the Macrons say they will introduce photographic and scientific evidence in court to prove otherwise. This case is not a sleepy French gossip column — it’s a 22‑count complaint and a deliberate effort by the Macron team to force accountability for what they call a campaign of global humiliation.
Conservatives should be the first to defend free speech, but free speech does not mean freedom from consequences when you weaponize lies for clicks and cash. Owens, a polarizing figure with a huge online platform, doubled down by releasing an eight‑part series called “Becoming Brigitte,” and now she claims First Amendment protection while continuing to profit from a narrative that dozens of outlets and fact‑checkers have called baseless. We can support robust debate and skepticism of elites without applauding the deliberate spread of salacious falsehoods designed to inflame.
The Macrons’ legal team has been methodical — they say they repeatedly sent retraction demands and “incontrovertible evidence” that disproved the claims before filing suit, and their lawyer says expert testimony and photos, including images of Brigitte during pregnancy, will be part of the docket. The choice of Delaware court isn’t accidental; it’s a forum familiar to American litigators where jurisdictional questions and corporate entities tied to Owens may be tested. Whether you like the Macrons or not, the courtroom is the right place to sort fact from fiction rather than letting talk‑show hysteria set the record.
That said, Americans should watch closely for overreach. Powerful Western leaders suing individual commentators risks creating a chilling precedent where governments and elites use litigation to bully critics into silence. If conservatives want to remain the party of liberty and rugged individualism, we must insist on both defending free expression and demanding the same standards of evidence and integrity from our side as we do from our opponents. The remedy for bad speech is better speech and, where applicable, the rule of law — not reflexive censorship.
At its heart this fight is cultural as much as legal: it exposes the growing appetite for conspiracy among broad swaths of the internet and the willingness of prominent voices to monetize rumor. Patriots who care about truth and the preservation of institutions should be skeptical of influencers who trade in character assassination, but equally wary of elites who would use courts to silence dissent. Let the facts come out in open court, let the chips fall where they may, and let America keep the fierce debate that made this nation free — even when that debate is messy, uncomfortable, and sometimes inconvenient for both sides.
