France: On June 21, 2024, the Paris judicial court becomes the scene of a resounding trial. Two women, Nathalie Rey, and Delphine Jégousse, find themselves in the dock for having spread an astonishing rumor on the Internet: Brigitte Macron, the wife of the President of the French Republic, is in reality a transgender woman. This affair, which has taken on unexpected proportions, raises profound questions about the veracity of information circulating online and the limits of freedom of expression.
The Context of an Explosive Rumor
The rumor began to grow in December 2021, with the broadcast on YouTube and Twitch of an interview with Nathalie Rey, presenting herself as an independent journalist. For nearly four hours, Rey developed a fantastic theory: Brigitte Macron was in fact Jean-Michel Trogneux, a man who had changed sex, become a teacher under the name Brigitte, and then married Emmanuel Macron, a former student who became president.
Delphine Jégusse, a 50-year-old medium known under the pseudonym Amandine Roy, accompanies him in this destabilizing enterprise. Together, they evoke conspiracy theories involving the CIA, falsification of documents, and media manipulation.
Defamation or Search for Truth?
The trial opened on a surreal note. The president of the 17th chamber showed excerpts from the interview, despite some technical problems. Nathalie Rey, absent for health reasons, was represented by her lawyer. Delphine Jégousse, for her part, defended herself in court, claiming that she did not know Rey before this video and that she only wanted to give a platform to an investigation allegedly botched by the mainstream media.
Dressed in blue denim pants and jacket, Jégusse explains: “I felt obliged to open my channel to him, out of respect for the right to information. » She insists that she only asked questions and raised anomalies, without ever adopting Rey’s thesis. However, the judges note that she seems to agree with her guest’s comments in the video, showing no doubt.
Emotional Testimonies and Factual Evidence
During the hearing, Delphine Jégousse burst into tears when she spoke about the consequences of this affair on her personal life. “I’ve had four procedures for the two Macrons,” she said, referring to the legal proceedings initiated by Emmanuel Macron after the distribution of a poster comparing him to Adolf Hitler.
Me Jean Ennochi, the lawyer for the Macrons, presents birth certificates and other official documents proving the falsity of the allegations. He jokes about the possibility of falsification by the CIA and shows the voter card of Jean-Michel Trogneux, still active. For him, the damage suffered by his clients is enormous and must be compensated to the tune of 20,000 euros.
The Defense of the Accused
Jégousse’s lawyer, Maud Marian, argues that her client should not be held responsible for the comments made by Nathalie Rey. According to her, Jégousse simply offered a platform for an alternative opinion, without any intention of causing harm. François Danglehant, representing Rey, maintains that the speeches in question are biographical criticism and not defamation.
The Repercussions of a Viral Affair
This case highlights the dangers of conspiracy theories and their ability to spread rapidly on the Internet. Social media plays a crucial role in spreading these rumors, amplifying their reach and impact. For the accused, the consequences are severe: legal proceedings, online harassment, and a damaged reputation.
For Brigitte Macron and her family, this rumor is a personal attack and a violation of their privacy. It also highlights the challenges faced by public figures, constantly exposed to public scrutiny and judgment.
Quotes and Testimonials
Brigitte Macron: “This case is a tragic illustration of how rumors can destroy lives and sow discord. »
Delphine Jégusse: “I never envisioned it taking this turn. If I had to do it again, I wouldn’t do it. »
Nathalie Rey (via her lawyer): “This is a critical investigation into an official biography filled with inconsistencies. »
A Case That Questions Society
The court’s decision, reserved until September 12, 2024, is impatiently awaited. This trial is not only about defamation but also a reflection of current tensions between truth and lies, information and disinformation. It raises the question of the responsibility of the media and individuals in the dissemination of information.
Ultimately, this case is a reminder of the importance of fact-checking and constructive criticism in journalism. It invites reflection on our relationship with information and truth in the digital age, where a simple rumor can quickly go viral and have devastating consequences.
