Free Indirect Discourse in Court: An Overview of Contemporary Jurisprudence in French Press Law

Abstract

This article analyzes two French court decisions which deal with fictionality and free indirect discourse. Two novelists, Mathieu Lindon and Eric Bénie-Bürckel, have been sued for contentious statements made by fictional characters: the former on the basis of defamation and the latter for racial hatred against Jews. The article shows that the criteria used by judges to evaluate the “narrative distance” between the author and his characters are very variable. In the case of the correctional court that arbitrated the Lindon case, the reasoning behind the judges' decision dismissed the question of reported speech, which, according to them, changed nothing in the representation of the real person defamed. In the Bénier-Bürckel case, on the other hand, the criminal court considered that because the statements were pronounced by a fictitious speaker, there was a distance between the author and the remarks at issue. In that case, the judges thus gave a central place to the criterion of fictionality. However, a linguistic analysis makes it possible to identify the use of free indirect discourse and devices of aphorization in the controversial statements which reduce the distance between the character and the author. The criterion of fictionality cannot therefore resolve the question on its own.

Keywords:

• Free indirect discourse
• linguistics
• French law
• discrimination

Notes

1 Pierre Bayard, L’Affaire du chien des Baskerville (Paris: Minuit, 2008).

2 A comparable approach has been adopted for exploring various categories: the proper name (see Anna Arzoumanov “‘Toute ressemblance avec…’: Quand le droit se penche sur l’usage fictionnel du nom propre,” in Seuils du nom propre, ed. Nicolas Laurent and Christelle Reggiani (Limoges: Lambert-Lucas, 2017), polyphony (see Anna Arzoumanov and Arnaud Latil, “Juger la provocation onirique: éléments pour une interprétation des expressions polyphoniques. Commentaire de Crim, 28 mars 2017, n° 15-87.415,” Juris Art etc., Octobre (2017): 38-43), style (see Anna Arzoumanov, “Le style comme bouclier juridique? L’argument du style dans quelques procès de fictions contemporains,” Romanic Review, no. 109 (2018): 31-52) and Anna Arzoumanov, “Le fait divers littéraire au tribunal: Une jurisprudence stylisticienne?” Recherches & travaux (2018): 92), fiction and nonfiction (see Anna Arzoumanov, La fiction objet de droit? Réflexions sur une catégorie juridique émergente en droit de la presse,” La Licorne (2018)).

3 Stanley Fish, Quand lire, c’est faire. L’autorité des communautés interprétatives [Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities], (Paris: Les Prairies ordinaires, [1980] 2007).

4 Roger Chartier, L’Ordre des livres, (Paris : Alinéa, 1992).

5 These statements were collected during interviews conducted between 2014 and 2016.

6 Christophe Bigot, Pratique du droit de la presse. Presse écrite – Édition – Télévision – Radio – Internet, (Paris: Légipresse, 2017).

7 Not all the charges are listed here. For more details, see Ibid., chap. 2.

8 Ibid., 159-198.

9 The rise of this category led to the promulgation of a new law in July 2016: the law relating to freedom of creation, architecture, and heritage (known as LCAP). This aims to protect and guarantee the freedom of creation and to modernize the protection of cultural heritage. Many legal publications have been devoted to this category since the 2000s, see: Nathalie Mallet-Poujol, “De la biographie à la fiction : la création littéraire au risque des droits de la personne,” Légicom, no. 24, (2001): 107-121; Laure Marino, “La fiction et la liberté de création,” Gazette du Palais, Avril 27-28 (2007): 26-27; Anne-Marie Sauteraud, “Bonne foi et littérature: les limites de la liberté de création,” Légicom, no. 50 (2013): 45-50; Édouard Treppoz, “Pour une attention particulière du droit à la création: l’exemple des fictions littéraires,” Recueil Dalloz, (2013): 2487; Serfaty Vidal, “La liberté de création dans le piège des fictions du réel,” Légipresse, no. 335 (2016): 93-99; Fabienne Siredey-Garnier, “Le regard du juge de presse sur la liberté de création,” Légicom, 58 (2017): 65-73.

10 See Anna Arzoumanov, “Les catégories de l’identification et de la distanciation dans les procès de fictions,” in Le Démon de la catégorie. Retour sur la qualification en droit et en littérature, ed. Anna Arzoumanov et al. (Paris : Mare et Martin, 2017), 197-210.

11 This far-right party was founded in 1972 by Jean-Marie Le Pen to unify the French nationalist movement. Jean-Marie Le Pen was its leader until his resignation in 2011. Since 1984, the party has been a major force of French nationalism. Jean-Marie Le Pen’s statements concerning the Holocaust and the Jews made the headlines at this time.

12 Le Pen c. Lindon, Otchakovski-Laurens, Trib. Corr. [criminal court] Paris, October 11, 1999.

13 Mathieu Lindon, Le Procès de Jean-Marie Le Pen, (Paris : Gallimard Folio, 2000): 12.

14 Authier-Revuz, Jacqueline “Repères dans le champ du discours rapporté,” L’Information grammaticale, no. 55 (1992): 38-42.

15 Dominique Maingueneau, Les Phrases sans texte, (Paris : Armand Colin, 2012).

16 Rosier Laurence, Le Discours rapporté en français, (Paris : Ophrys, 2008).

17 Le Pen c. Lindon, Orchakovski-Laurens, Trib. Corr. [criminal court] Paris, 11 Oct. 1999.

18 Christophe Kantcheff & Bertrand Leclair, 'Le Pen, chest moi' (2008), Homme et libertés, 142 avril/juin, p.16-19

19 Agnès Tricoire, “Fiction et vie privée,” Légipresse, no. 321 (2014): 125-135.

20 Le Pen c. Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens, Cour d’appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Paris, 13 Sept. 2000.

21 Ibid.

22 Bernard Comment & Oliver Rolin, “Un livre inqualifiable,” Le Monde, 11 Feb. (2005).

23 Article 23, paras. 6 and 7, article 24, paras. 8, 9, 10 & 11, 42 of the law of 29 July 1881, 131-26 2° and 3° of the penal code, 93-3 of the law of 29 July 1982.

24 Articles 23, 29 paras. 2, 47 and 48 of the law of 29 July 1881.

25 Articles 23, 29 paras. 2, 47 and 48 of the law of 29 July 1881.

26 Ministère public c. Bénier-Bürckel et a., Tribunal de grande insistence [TGI] [ordinary court of original jurisdiction] Paris, 17th ch., 16 Nov. 2006, Légipresse 2007, no. 240-III, p. 73 (emphasis added).

27 Éric Bénier-Bürckel, response to the forum of Bernard Comment and Olivier Rolin, Le Monde, 20 Feb. 2005; online on Remue.net.

28 Éric Bénier-Bürckel, Pogrom (Paris: Flammarion, 2005), 138-39.

29 See Laurence (2008, 43)

30 Éric Bénier-Bürckel, Pogrom (Paris: Flammarion, 2005), 143.

31 Gilles Philippe, , “Peut-on avoir du discours indirect libre dans du discours indirect libre?” in La Langue, le style, le sens, ed. Claire Badiou, et al., (Paris : L’Improviste, 2005), 287-295.

32 Ibid, 143.

33 Ministère public c. Bénier-Bürckel, supra note 15 (emphasis added).

34 Rolin & Comment, “Un livre inqualifiable,” supra note 11.

35 Jean-Claude Poizat & Éric Bénier-Burckel, “Pogrom,” lelittéraire.com (accessed 9 Sept. 2012).

36 Raphaël Baroni, “La guerre des voix: Critique polyphonique et divergence interprétative dans l’oeuvre de Michel Houellebecq,” COnTEXTES (2014).

37 Baroni, Raphaël (2016), “Comment débusquer la voix d’un auteur dans sa fiction? Une étude de quelques provocations de Michel Houellebecq,” Arborescences (2016): 6.

38 See Jérôme Meizoz, Postures littéraires: Mises en scène modernes de l’auteur, (Genève : Slatkine, 2007); and Jérôme Meizoz, La Fabrique des singularités: Postures littéraires II, (Genève : Slatkine, 2011).

39 As such, FID produces the same interference as free direct discourse, as may be seen from the analysis of Christelle Reggiani “L’intériorisation du roman: brève histoire du discours indirect libre,” in La langue littéraire : Une histoire de la prose en France de Gustave Flaubert à Claude Simon, ed. G. Philippe & J. Piat, (Paris : Fayard, 2009), 122-135.

40 Agnès Tricoire, “Quand la fiction exclut le délit,” Légipresse, no. 240 (2014): 72-79.