ON
← Back to feed
The editorial by Étienne de Montety: Decisions of the Constitutional Council, did you say freedom?
France🏛️ PoliticsCenter7 days ago

The editorial by Étienne de Montety: Decisions of the Constitutional Council, did you say freedom?

The article discusses two main topics related to French constitutional law and freedom of expression. The first part features Luc Ferry reflecting on truth, bureaucratic language ('langue de bois'), and thought policing, in the context of recent warnings from Arcom (the French audiovisual regulatory authority). He suggests individuals must choose between resisting potential censorship by progressive forces or conforming to restrictive speech norms. The second section presents a critique by Jean-Éric Schoettl and Jean-Pierre Camby regarding the Council of Constitutional Law’s decision on assisted dying legislation. They argue that while the council emphasized its lack of authority similar to Parliament, it failed to adequately address fundamental legal questions.

The Conseil constitutionnel has ruled against the law banning social media platforms for minors under 15 years old, calling the measure “too general” and “not adapted, necessary, or proportional” to the goal of protecting children’s rights. The decision comes after the Council rejected the law during its review process, citing concerns over freedom of expression and communication. This ruling has sparked widespread debate among political figures and legal experts, with some calling for a referendum to bypass parliamentary procedures and directly involve citizens in the decision-making process. Gabriel Attal, candidate for the presidency of the Republic under the Renaissance party, has called upon President Emmanuel Macron to submit the issue to a national referendum. In an article published in La Tribune, he argues that the current legislative process would delay the implementation of the measure by nearly two years, leaving millions of children exposed to potentially harmful online content. He contends that a referendum would allow for quicker action and ensure that the French people have a direct say in shaping policies affecting their children. Attal, who played a key role in drafting the original legislation, claims that the law falls within the scope of Article 11 of the Constitution, which allows for referendums on matters of social policy. The Conseil constitutionnel’s rejection of the law was part of a broader set of rulings issued this week. Alongside the social media ban, the Council validated several other laws, including one allowing assisted dying under strict conditions and measures related to agriculture and security. However, it struck down parts of the controversial “Ripost” security law, rejecting seven provisions deemed unconstitutional and labeling others as “cavaliers”, legislative proposals unrelated to the original text. The Council also upheld certain agricultural reforms, such as the temporary reintroduction of two banned pesticides, though these were subject to additional restrictions. Among the most contentious decisions was the ruling on the right to die with assistance. The Council found no constitutional violations in the law, effectively paving the way for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide under specific circumstances. It allowed for exceptions, such as the ability of entire institutions, like Catholic clinics, to opt out based on freedom of enterprise and association. Additionally, pharmacists were granted a “conscience clause,” enabling them to refuse compounding lethal substances. These rulings reflect a growing willingness of the Council to expand individual rights while maintaining constitutional boundaries. The decision to block the social media ban has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers and civil society groups. Some argue that the Council’s interpretation of proportionality is overly broad, undermining efforts to protect young users from digital risks. Others point to the lack of safeguards for privacy and age verification, which the Council cited as major flaws. Meanwhile, supporters of the law contend that the Council has overstepped its authority by imposing a rigid framework that fails to account for the complexities of modern technology and parental oversight. As the debate continues, the government faces mounting pressure to find a compromise. Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu has been tasked with revising the law to meet the Council’s requirements, but the process could take months. In the meantime, activists and parents remain divided, with some advocating for stricter controls and others warning against excessive regulation. The situation highlights the ongoing tension between state intervention in personal freedoms and the need to safeguard vulnerable populations, particularly children. With the upcoming legislative session, the question of how to balance these competing interests will likely dominate public discourse.

Go to the primary sources (2)

The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.

3 reports

Le Figaro logoLe FigaroIndependent🔒CenterFactual 75Objective 609 days ago
Help to die, social networks, pesticides, free parties... What to remember from the decisions made by the Constitutional Council this Friday

Le Conseil constitutionnel a rendu plusieurs décisions importantes ce vendredi, validant la loi sur l'aide à mourir, certaines mesures agricoles et sécuritaires, tout en censurant l'interdiction des réseaux sociaux aux moins de 15 ans. Les sages ont jugé que cette mesure était trop générale et non proportionnée à l'objectif de protection des enfants. Ils ont également validé l'interdiction des téléphones portables au lycée, qui entrera en vigueur à la rentrée si le président Macron promulgue la loi. Concernant l'agriculture, la loi d'urgence agricole a été jugée conforme à la Constitution, bien que certains articles aient été censurés. La loi «Ripost» a subi de nombreuses censures.

Bias read (Center): L'article présente les décisions du Conseil constitutionnel de manière factuelle, sans prendre parti clair sur les mesures adoptées. Il mentionne les points validés et censurés, mais ne donne pas d'orientation politique forte. L'analyse reste neutre et objective, reflétant une couverture équilibrée.

Why factuality (75): The article accurately reports the Council Constitutional’s decision regarding the 'right to aid in dying' law and the rejection of the social media ban for minors under 15. It cites the constitutional ruling and mentions the three reservations. However, it omits the primary source document’s mentio

Why objectivity (60): The tone is somewhat critical and leans towards political commentary, especially when discussing the social media ban and the 'right to aid in dying.' The article uses emotionally charged language such as 'censuré' and frames the decisions in a way that suggests controversy rather than neutrality.

Le Figaro logoLe FigaroIndependent🔒CenterFactual 60Objective 507 days ago
The editorial by Étienne de Montety: Decisions of the Constitutional Council, did you say freedom?

The article discusses two main topics related to French constitutional law and freedom of expression. The first part features Luc Ferry reflecting on truth, bureaucratic language ('langue de bois'), and thought policing, in the context of recent warnings from Arcom (the French audiovisual regulatory authority). He suggests individuals must choose between resisting potential censorship by progressive forces or conforming to restrictive speech norms. The second section presents a critique by Jean-Éric Schoettl and Jean-Pierre Camby regarding the Council of Constitutional Law’s decision on assisted dying legislation. They argue that while the council emphasized its lack of authority similar to Parliament, it failed to adequately address fundamental legal questions.

Bias read (Center): The article presents contrasting viewpoints on constitutional decisions and freedom of expression without overtly favoring one side. It includes critiques from different perspectives but does not exhibit clear bias toward either political ideology.

Why factuality (60): This article focuses on political reaction to the Council Constitutional’s decision, particularly from Gabriel Attal. While it references the censored law and his call for a referendum, it does not provide detailed legal analysis or directly quote the primary source document. It presents more opinio

Why objectivity (50): The article has a strong political bias, favoring the position of Gabriel Attal and suggesting that the Council Constitutional’s decision was controversial. It uses emotive language like 'incompréhensible' and frames the situation as a matter of democratic participation rather than legal interpretat

Le Figaro logoLe FigaroIndependent🔒CenterFactual 50Objective 458 days ago
Social media banned for under-15s: Gabriel Attal calls for a referendum

Gabriel Attal, candidat à la présidence de la République pour le parti Renaissance, a appelé Emmanuel Macron à soumettre à référendum l'interdiction des réseaux sociaux aux moins de 15 ans, après que le Conseil constitutionnel ait rejeté la loi adoptée par le Parlement. Attal considère que cette procédure parlementaire prolongerait la mise en œuvre de la mesure de près de deux ans, exposant ainsi 1,5 million d'enfants quotidiennement aux algorithmes des plateformes. Il argue que la loi relève de la «politique sociale» et pourrait être soumise au référendum selon l'article 11 de la Constitution. Le Conseil constitutionnel a jugé que la loi portait une atteinte non proportionnée à la liberté d'expression.

Bias read (Center): L'article présente les arguments de Gabriel Attal en faveur du référendum, mais ne prend pas position clairement en faveur ou contre la mesure. Il cite les opinions de différentes parties, notamment le Conseil constitutionnel, et reste neutre dans la formulation. Le ton est objectif, sans biais évid

Why factuality (50): This article appears to be an editorial piece rather than a factual report. It includes quotes from unnamed contributors and discusses political reactions without providing direct evidence or citations from the primary source. The content seems more focused on opinion and political discourse than on

Why objectivity (45): The tone is highly subjective and partisan, using phrases like 'langue de bois' and 'police de la pensée,' which suggest a clear ideological stance. The article does not attempt to present multiple perspectives or maintain neutrality in its discussion of the Council Constitutional’s rulings.

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories