Public disputes over whether people were penalized, or discouraged from speaking, because of what they said, published or protested, including claims that a government action was retaliation for speech.
Published coverage on this page: 4+ cases · 24+ statements. Statements are ordered newest first.
Announcing his 2027 presidential run on TF1, Éric Zemmour said his convictions for racial insult and incitement to hatred were for an opinion offense under a law he would abolish. Anchor Gilles Bouleau answered that racism is not an opinion.
Published
Read the case
Published
Published
Labels describe a response to the linked claim or the action explained in the statement summary. Choose one or more.
398 matching statements
Role at the time: New York Post columnist, in an opinion column
Response to this claim
Houellebecq's 2022 remarks about Muslims contain no exhortation, even implicit, and therefore fall within freedom of opinion and expression.
“The man who defends his nation's spirit and integrity is treated as a greater threat than the man who burns that culture to the ground.”
The reference point is Michel Houellebecq's November 2022 remarks about Muslims in Front Populaire, now under judicial investigation. Schlott treats the remarks as legitimate criticism of Islam and immigration and describes Houellebecq as a man who defends his nation's spirit, which defends them. She goes beyond disputing the incitement label, so challenges the characterization does not fit.
Role at the time: French-Syrian writer and journalist, in an opinion column in Le Figaro
Response to this claim
Houellebecq's 2022 remarks about Muslims contain no exhortation, even implicit, and therefore fall within freedom of opinion and expression.
“It was a forecast, the vision of a future in which such violence would take place (Translated from French. Original: C'était une prospective, la vision d'un avenir où de telles violences auraient lieu)”
The reference point is Michel Houellebecq's November 2022 remarks about Muslims in Front Populaire, now under judicial investigation. Souleimane describes the passage on attacks against Muslims as a forecast rather than the provocation the complaints allege, which challenges the characterization. He does not argue that the remarks about Muslims were justified, so defends or excuses does not fit.
Role at the time: President of SOS Racisme, interviewed on RTL Matin
Statement summary
On RTL the morning after Zemmour's announcement, Sopo calls his candidacy a republican problem, says Zemmour was convicted for remarks of incredible violence, including at the 2019 Convention de la droite, and argues that remarks portraying Black people, Arabs, Muslims and foreigners as existential dangers give license to serious violence.
Quotation excerpt
“These remarks give license to extremely serious acts. ... I am not saying that Éric Zemmour has blood on his hands: I am saying that he may have it on his conscience, if he has one (Translated from French. Original: Ces propos autorisent…”
“These remarks give license to extremely serious acts. ... I am not saying that Éric Zemmour has blood on his hands: I am saying that he may have it on his conscience, if he has one (Translated from French. Original: Ces propos autorisent des passages à l'acte extrêmement graves. ... Je ne dis pas qu'Éric Zemmour a du sang sur les mains : je dis qu'il en a peut-être sur la conscience, si tant est qu'il en ait une)”
What this label refers to
The reference point is the remarks for which French courts have definitively convicted Éric Zemmour of racial insult and incitement to hatred. Sopo describes the remarks behind Zemmour's convictions, including his 2019 Convention de la droite speech, as very racist and incredibly violent, and says such remarks give license to serious acts of violence, which condemns them.
Role at the time: French anti-racism association and civil party in the case, commenting to Le Nouvel Obs
Response to this claim
The wish of France's native-born population is not for Muslims to assimilate but for them to stop robbing and attacking them, or else, as another solution, for them to leave.
Quotation excerpt
“We never considered that these explanations held up; withdrawing our complaint was never in question (Translated from French. Original: Nous n'avons jamais considéré que ces explications tenaient la route, il n'a jamais été question de…”
“We never considered that these explanations held up; withdrawing our complaint was never in question (Translated from French. Original: Nous n'avons jamais considéré que ces explications tenaient la route, il n'a jamais été question de retirer notre plainte)”
The reference point is Michel Houellebecq's November 2022 remarks about Muslims in Front Populaire, now under judicial investigation. The MRAP rejects the explanations Houellebecq gave for the remarks, maintains its criminal complaint over them and welcomes the investigation, which condemns them.
Role at the time: Lawyer for the Union des mosquées de France, a complainant in the case, speaking to AFP
Response to this claim
Houellebecq's 2022 remarks about Muslims contain no exhortation, even implicit, and therefore fall within freedom of opinion and expression.
“Freedom of expression is fundamental, but it cannot justify everything (Translated from French. Original: La liberté d'expression est fondamentale mais elle ne saurait tout justifier)”
The reference point is Michel Houellebecq's November 2022 remarks about Muslims in Front Populaire, now under judicial investigation. Speaking for the federation whose complaint led to the investigation, El Haïté rejects the defense that the remarks are protected expression, which condemns them. She leaves the finding to the court and cites the presumption of innocence, but that is a legal caveat rather than a condition on her client's position, so mixed or conditional does not fit.
Role at the time: Lawyer for Michel Houellebecq, in a statement with his co-counsel Louis Cailliez to BFMTV and AFP
Response to this claim
Houellebecq's 2022 remarks about Muslims contain no exhortation, even implicit, and therefore fall within freedom of opinion and expression.
Quotation excerpt
“Michel Houellebecq contests the criminal offense of which he is accused. The remarks at issue contain no element of exhortation, even implicit, and therefore fall within freedom of opinion and expression (Translated from French. Original:…”
“Michel Houellebecq contests the criminal offense of which he is accused. The remarks at issue contain no element of exhortation, even implicit, and therefore fall within freedom of opinion and expression (Translated from French. Original: Michel Houellebecq conteste le délit pénal qui lui est reproché. Les propos incriminés ne contiennent pas de dimension d'exhortation, même implicite, et relèvent donc de la liberté d'opinion et d'expression)”
The reference point is Michel Houellebecq's November 2022 remarks about Muslims in Front Populaire, now under judicial investigation. His lawyers dispute that the remarks amount to incitement, saying they contain no exhortation and belong to free expression, which challenges the characterization. They do not argue that the content of the remarks was right, so defends or excuses does not fit.
Role at the time: National secretary of the French Communist Party (PCF) and its 2027 presidential candidate
Statement summary
As Zemmour announced his candidacy on TF1, Roussel posted that Zemmour wants to lead the Republic after several convictions for racist remarks and repeated his call to make politicians convicted of racism ineligible.
Quotation excerpt
“Éric Zemmour wants to preside over the Republic after being convicted several times for racist remarks. I have been saying it for a long time: politicians convicted of racism should be made ineligible. (Translated from French. Original:…”
“Éric Zemmour wants to preside over the Republic after being convicted several times for racist remarks. I have been saying it for a long time: politicians convicted of racism should be made ineligible. (Translated from French. Original: Éric Zemmour veut présider la République après avoir été condamné à plusieurs reprises pour propos racistes. Je le dis depuis longtemps : les responsables politiques condamnés pour racisme devraient être rendus inéligibles.)”
What this label refers to
The reference point is the remarks for which French courts have definitively convicted Éric Zemmour of racial insult and incitement to hatred. Roussel describes the remarks behind Zemmour's convictions as racist and says politicians convicted of racism should be barred from office, which condemns the remarks. His call for ineligibility is a proposed remedy; the label rests on his description of the remarks as racist and his view that they disqualify a candidate.
Role at the time: Anchor and editor-in-chief of TF1's evening news, Le 20H, interviewing Zemmour on air
Response to this claim
Éric Zemmour's convictions for racial insult and incitement to hatred are for opinion offenses, not racism, under a law that lets judges restrict freedom of expression.
Quotation excerpt
“It is the application of the law ... you committed punishable offenses ... Racism is not an opinion. (Translated from French. Original: C'est l'application du droit ... vous avez commis des délits répréhensibles ... Le racisme n'est pas une…”
“It is the application of the law ... you committed punishable offenses ... Racism is not an opinion. (Translated from French. Original: C'est l'application du droit ... vous avez commis des délits répréhensibles ... Le racisme n'est pas une opinion.)”
The reference point is the remarks for which French courts have definitively convicted Éric Zemmour of racial insult and incitement to hatred. Bouleau tells Zemmour he committed punishable offenses and answers his description of them as an opinion offense by saying racism is not an opinion, which criticizes the remarks themselves as racism. He does more than dispute a description: he presents the convictions as the law applied to racist remarks.
Role at the time: President of Reconquête and presidential candidate, interviewed on TF1's Le 20H
Response to this claim
Éric Zemmour's convictions for racial insult and incitement to hatred are for opinion offenses, not racism, under a law that lets judges restrict freedom of expression.
Quotation excerpt
“I am the victim of judicial harassment ... This is not racism, it has nothing to do with it. That is how judges interpret a freedom-killing law that I will abolish if I am president, because it allows judges to ban freedom of expression…”
“I am the victim of judicial harassment ... This is not racism, it has nothing to do with it. That is how judges interpret a freedom-killing law that I will abolish if I am president, because it allows judges to ban freedom of expression (Translated from French. Original: Je suis victime d'un harcèlement judiciaire ... Ce n'est pas du racisme, ça n'a rien à voir. Les juges interprètent ainsi une loi liberticide que j'abolirai si je suis président, parce que ça permet aux juges d'interdire la liberté d'expression)”
The reference point is the remarks for which French courts have definitively convicted Éric Zemmour of racial insult and incitement to hatred. Zemmour says the remarks are not racism, calls his convictions an opinion offense and pledges to abolish the law under which judges punished them. Because he goes beyond rejecting the racism label and presents the remarks as acceptable speech that the law should not punish, this is a defense of the remarks rather than only a dispute over how they are described.
Role at the time: Attorney General of California and a defendant in the suit, in a statement from his office quoted by Reuters
Statement summary
Bonta's office says it is pleased that part of the emissions disclosure law can be enforced, is evaluating its next steps, and is committed to protecting Californians' access to critical climate data.
“committed to protecting Californians' access to critical climate data in a changing world.”
What this label refers to
The reference point is California's SB 253 and SB 261, which require large companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks, and which the Ninth Circuit partly blocked on November 9, 2026. Bonta, who defends the laws in court, welcomes the part of the ruling that keeps emissions reporting in force and commits to protecting access to climate data, which defends the laws.
Role at the time: Business group and plaintiff, in a statement by Daryl Joseffer, president of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center
Response to this claim
California's SB 253 and SB 261 compel companies to speak on a contested subject and violate the First Amendment.
Quotation excerpt
“The injunction prevents the state from imposing massive compliance costs on companies, especially small businesses, and confirms that states cannot unilaterally impose sweeping, extraterritorial mandates. ... We look forward to securing a…”
“The injunction prevents the state from imposing massive compliance costs on companies, especially small businesses, and confirms that states cannot unilaterally impose sweeping, extraterritorial mandates. ... We look forward to securing a permanent injunction against these laws.”
The reference point is California's SB 253 and SB 261, which require large companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks, and which the Ninth Circuit partly blocked on November 9, 2026. The Chamber, which sued to block both laws, describes them as costly, sweeping mandates and says it will seek to block them permanently, which condemns the laws.
Role at the time: Environmental group that filed a brief supporting the laws, in a statement by senior attorney Stephanie Jones
Response to this claim
California's climate disclosure laws are consistent with the First Amendment.
Quotation excerpt
“California’s climate disclosure laws are firmly consistent with the First Amendment and will provide information that Californians need to make sound financial decisions as businesses advance clean, affordable energy solutions and…”
“California’s climate disclosure laws are firmly consistent with the First Amendment and will provide information that Californians need to make sound financial decisions as businesses advance clean, affordable energy solutions and climate-fueled disasters grow more costly and disruptive. As the case moves forward we will continue to vigorously defend these vitally important laws.”
The reference point is California's SB 253 and SB 261, which require large companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks, and which the Ninth Circuit partly blocked on November 9, 2026. EDF says the laws are constitutional and vitally important and that it will keep defending them, which defends the laws.
Role at the time: Co-host of The Breakfast Club on Power 105.1 FM, on the show
Statement summary
On The Breakfast Club, Charlamagne tha God says he does not find humor in people being shot and does not want anyone shot over their opinions, while saying comedians have the freedom to joke about whatever they want.
Quotation excerpt
“I don’t find the humor in people getting clapped, okay? Any of us can be shot, and I don’t want anybody getting shot because somebody disagrees with their opinion ... So yeah, you have the freedom to, you know, joke and talk about whatever…”
“I don’t find the humor in people getting clapped, okay? Any of us can be shot, and I don’t want anybody getting shot because somebody disagrees with their opinion ... So yeah, you have the freedom to, you know, joke and talk about whatever you want to joke and talk about; but personally, I don’t want to deal with the energy of that.”
What this label refers to
The reference point is Dave Chappelle's November 7, 2026 remark at Madison Square Garden that he has felt better since Charlie Kirk was murdered. Charlamagne rejects the humor in the remark but affirms Chappelle's freedom to make it, which is a mixed position.
Role at the time: Comedian and actor, in a post on X
Statement summary
In a post written as a letter to Chappelle, comedian Rob Schneider says Chappelle is no longer the person he was and has become a champion of senseless violence, and that no one should feel better after Kirk's murder.
Quotation excerpt
“Dave, you are now a champion of senseless violence who embodies the base ugliness of our body politic. Nobody deserves to die for engaging in conversation. And no one should “feel better” after the violent murder of a husband, a father, a…”
“Dave, you are now a champion of senseless violence who embodies the base ugliness of our body politic. Nobody deserves to die for engaging in conversation. And no one should “feel better” after the violent murder of a husband, a father, a son and a friend. No human being deserves that.”
What this label refers to
The reference point is Dave Chappelle's November 7, 2026 remark at Madison Square Garden that he has felt better since Charlie Kirk was murdered. Schneider says no one should feel better after Kirk's murder and calls Chappelle a champion of senseless violence, which condemns the remark.
Role at the time: Chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX, posting on X
Statement summary
Elon Musk responds to a video clip from Chappelle's Madison Square Garden show about Charlie Kirk by saying Chappelle is cruel.
“Dave Chappelle is cruel”
What this label refers to
The reference point is Dave Chappelle's November 7, 2026 remark at Madison Square Garden that he has felt better since Charlie Kirk was murdered. Musk calls Chappelle cruel in response to the clip, which condemns the remarks.
Role at the time: Channel 14 host and 103FM radio co-host
Statement summary
On 103FM radio, Magal says Channel 13 of course should not have suspended Berkovic and calls the critics a bunch of hypocrites, saying they had also called Haredim parasites, as Berkovic once did.
Quotation excerpt
“Of course not ... Berko talked about Haredim being parasites, and you said about Haredim that they are parasites. You are a bunch of hypocrites, that's all (Translated from Hebrew. Original: ברור שלא ... ברקו דיבר על חרדים שהם טפילים, ואתם…”
“Of course not ... Berko talked about Haredim being parasites, and you said about Haredim that they are parasites. You are a bunch of hypocrites, that's all (Translated from Hebrew. Original: ברור שלא ... ברקו דיבר על חרדים שהם טפילים, ואתם אמרתם על חרדים שהם טפילים, אתם חבורה של צבועים, זה הכל)”
What this label refers to
The reference point is Berkovic's November 7 on-air remarks questioning whether Abdul El-Sayed and Ahmad Tibi are really doctors. Asked whether Channel 13 should have suspended Berkovic over them, Magal says of course not and calls the critics hypocrites, which excuses the remarks. Challenged the characterization is the closest competing label; it loses because he does not argue the remarks were misdescribed, only that the critics apply a double standard.
Role at the time: Broadcaster and host of Piers Morgan Uncensored, in a post on X
Statement summary
Piers Morgan calls Chappelle's remark disgusting and especially egregious because Chappelle survived an attack on stage in 2022, and says the crowd's laughter was also repellent.
“Disgusting… and especially egregious given that Chappelle himself survived an attack on stage in 2022. The crowd roaring with laughter at his shamefully inhumane remarks is also repellent.”
What this label refers to
The reference point is Dave Chappelle's November 7, 2026 remark at Madison Square Garden that he has felt better since Charlie Kirk was murdered. Morgan calls the remark disgusting and shamefully inhumane, which condemns it.
Role at the time: Israeli television channel that airs Moria and Berko; statement issued by Channel 13 News
Statement summary
Channel 13 says freedom of expression is no license for racist remarks, calls what was said on Moria and Berko unacceptable and inconsistent with its values, and says Berkovic has been suspended from broadcasting immediately after a clarification meeting.
Quotation excerpt
“Freedom of expression and a diversity of opinions are among the cornerstones of a free press, but they are no license for racist remarks. The things said yesterday on the program Moria and Berko are unacceptable and inconsistent with the…”
“Freedom of expression and a diversity of opinions are among the cornerstones of a free press, but they are no license for racist remarks. The things said yesterday on the program Moria and Berko are unacceptable and inconsistent with the company's values. As a result, a clarification meeting was held with Eyal Berkovic, at the end of which it was decided to suspend him from broadcasting immediately (Translated from Hebrew. Original: חופש הביטוי וריבוי הדעות הם מאבני היסוד של עיתונות חופשית, אך אינם מהווים הכשר לאמירות גזעניות. הדברים שנאמרו אתמול בתוכנית מוריה וברקו אינם מקובלים ולא עולים בקנה אחד עם ערכי החברה. בעקבות כך נערכה עם איל ברקוביץ' שיחת הבהרה ובסיומה הוחלט על השעייתו המיידית משידור)”
What this label refers to
The reference point is Berkovic's November 7 on-air remarks questioning whether Abdul El-Sayed and Ahmad Tibi are really doctors. The channel calls them racist, unacceptable and inconsistent with its values and suspends him from broadcasting, which condemns them.
Role at the time: Podcaster and former footballer, Eyal Berkovic's son, on Instagram
Statement summary
Lior Berkovic calls his father's words about Tibi a small remark, asks whether small jabs and opinions that offend someone are no longer allowed, and tells his father that if Tibi is a doctor, he is a professor.
Quotation excerpt
“A few hours ago Dad was suspended from Channel 13 over a small remark about 'Doctor' Ahmad Tibi. And I ask myself, what, is it no longer allowed to throw small jabs, is it no longer allowed to express an opinion without someone getting…”
“A few hours ago Dad was suspended from Channel 13 over a small remark about 'Doctor' Ahmad Tibi. And I ask myself, what, is it no longer allowed to throw small jabs, is it no longer allowed to express an opinion without someone getting offended ... Dad, if Ahmad Tibi is a doctor, then you are a professor (Translated from Hebrew. Original: לפני כמה שעות אבא הושעה מערוץ 13 עקב התבטאות קטנה כלפי 'דוקטור' אחמד טיבי. ואני שואל את עצמי מה אסור יותר לזרוק עקיצות קטנות, אסור יותר להביע דעה בלי שמישהו או מישהי יעלבו ... אבא, אם אחמד טיבי דוקטור, אז אתה פרופסור)”
What this label refers to
The reference point is Eyal Berkovic's November 7 on-air remarks questioning whether Abdul El-Sayed and Ahmad Tibi are really doctors. His son calls the remark a small jab that should be allowed, objects to the suspension and repeats the doubt about Tibi's title in his closing line, which defends the remarks. Minimized is the closest competing label; it loses because he does more than play the remark down and argues it should be permitted.
Role at the time: Chairman of the Institute for Free Speech and former FEC chair, speaking to CNBC
Statement summary
Smith, whose Institute for Free Speech represents the groups suing to block I-194, tells CNBC that billionaires will find loopholes in the law and that its real effect is to silence Montana's small and medium-sized businesses.
“Billionaires will find loopholes. All this really does is silence Montana's small- and medium-sized businesses.”
What this label refers to
The reference point is constitutional protection for independent corporate and union election spending. Smith argues that a law stripping that spending power from Montana groups would silence nonprofits and small businesses, which defends the protection Citizens United recognized.
Role at the time: S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and former chief White House ethics lawyer, in an email to Dispute Index
Response to this claim
Trump's June 2019 statements denying E. Jean Carroll's allegation, made from the White House in response to press questions, were official acts protected by presidential immunity, and he never forfeited or waived that immunity.
Quotation excerpt
“My comment on it has focused not on the timing of the defense and whether that defense was waived, but the underlying issue of what is and is not "official capacity" conduct of the president. That question was left unanswered by the Supreme…”
“My comment on it has focused not on the timing of the defense and whether that defense was waived, but the underlying issue of what is and is not "official capacity" conduct of the president. That question was left unanswered by the Supreme Court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (holding the president is immune from civil suit for official acts) and again in Trump v. United States (holding the president is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts). In the Carroll case the Court could answer that question”
This is a fascinating case. My comment on it has focused not on the timing of the defense and whether that defense was waived, but the underlying issue of what is and is not “official capacity” conduct of the president. That question was left unanswered by the Supreme Court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (holding the president is immune from civil suit for official acts) and again in Trump v. United States (holding the president is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts). In the Carroll case the Court could answer that question (See Justice Barret’s concurrence in Trump v. United States discussing lack of clarity on that issue)
The reference point is Trump's June 2019 statements denying Carroll's allegation and his bid to escape the $83.3 million judgment through presidential immunity or substitution of the United States as defendant. Painter sets aside the question we asked, whether the defense came too late or was waived, and does not say whether Trump's statements were official acts. He calls that an open question the Court could answer in this case, so he takes no side on Trump's bid. He does not dispute how either side describes the case, so we labeled it Explicitly declines rather than Challenges the characterization.
Role at the time: Former U.S. labor secretary and political commentator, in a post on Bluesky
Statement summary
Reich says Montana voters chose overwhelmingly to neuter Citizens United and that no Supreme Court ruling or constitutional amendment was needed to do it.
“Montana — yes, deep red Montana — voted OVERWHELMINGLY last night to neuter Citizens United. No Supreme Court ruling or constitutional amendment needed.”
What this label refers to
The ruling protecting corporate independent spending is the action under scrutiny. Reich welcomes a state law meant to neuter Citizens United, which condemns the ruling.
Role at the time: Senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, in a post on Bluesky
Statement summary
Moore, who developed the legal approach behind the Montana Plan, says voters' approval of I-194 is huge news in the fight against Citizens United and that the law will rid Montana's politics of corporate and dark money.
“*Huge* news in the fight against Citizens United: Montana voters overwhelmingly vote for The Montana Plan, I-194, which will rid the state’s politics of corporate and dark money.”
What this label refers to
The ruling protecting corporate independent spending is the action under scrutiny. Moore describes I-194 as part of the fight against Citizens United and says he helped the effort, which condemns the ruling.
Role at the time: Plaintiffs acting through counsel
Statement summary
TikTok challenges AB 1709 as a speech restriction that would require a different service for users under 16, even with parental consent.
“Action: Filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against challenged provisions of AB 1709 on First Amendment and federal-law grounds.”
What this label refers to
TikTok expressly rejects AB 1709's restrictions as unlawful.
Rikki Schlott is an American journalist and author. She writes a column for the New York Post, is a fellow at the Cato Institute, co-wrote The Canceling of the American Mind with Greg Lukianoff and wrote Nothing Serious, a book about dating and relationships among young people.
1 case and 1 statement
Omar Youssef Souleimane is a Syrian-born French journalist, poet and writer, born in 1987 near Damascus. His books, published by Flammarion and Plon, include Le Petit Terroriste, Le Dernier Syrien, Être français, Les Complices du mal and Les Héritiers de la haine.
1 case and 1 statement
Dominique Sopo is a French teacher and anti-racism activist who has been president of SOS Racisme, the anti-racism association founded in 1984, from 2003 to 2012 and again since 2014. Born in Valenciennes in 1976, he teaches at a high school and at Sciences Po and is a former member of the Socialist Party. He has written books on racism, including Le racisme tue toujours (2026).
1 case and 1 statement
Najwa El Haïté is a French lawyer at the Paris bar whose practice covers criminal, business and family law as well as discrimination and secularism cases. She comments on legal and political questions on French television and in 2026 published Maître, sortez-moi de là !, a book about her work.
1 case and 1 statement
Thibault de Montbrial is a French lawyer at the Paris bar. He is the president of the Centre de réflexion sur la sécurité intérieure (CRSI), a think tank on domestic security, and a reserve lieutenant colonel in the Gendarmerie.
1 case and 1 statement
Fabien Roussel is a French politician who has been national secretary of the French Communist Party (PCF) since 2018. Born in Béthune in 1969, he represented the Nord department's 20th constituency in the National Assembly from 2017 to 2024. He was the PCF's candidate in the 2022 presidential election, finishing eighth with 2.28 percent of the vote, and is the party's candidate for the 2027 election.
1 case and 1 statement
Gilles Bouleau is a French television journalist who has presented TF1's weekday evening news, Le 20H, since June 2012 and is its editor-in-chief. Born in Paris in 1962, he worked for years as a reporter for TF1 and LCI and spent a decade abroad as a correspondent in London and then Washington. He headed TF1's special operations from 2011 before succeeding Laurence Ferrari as the evening news anchor.
1 case and 1 statement
Éric Zemmour is a French writer, former journalist and politician who founded the far-right party Reconquête in 2021 and is its president. Born in 1958 in Montreuil, he worked as a political journalist at Le Quotidien de Paris and Le Figaro, then became a widely followed radio and television commentator on outlets including RTL, Paris Première and CNews. He has written several best-selling essays, among them Le Suicide français (2014). He ran for president in 2022 and finished fourth in the first round with 7.07 percent of the vote. He has been prosecuted many times over his public remarks and has been convicted of offenses including racial insult and incitement to hatred.
1 case and 1 statement
Warren Pickering is an Australian politician who has led One Nation's Victorian branch since August 2026 and is the party's candidate for Pakenham at the 2026 Victorian state election. Born in Gippsland, he worked in farming, bricklaying and Queensland coal mining and served as an Australian Army combat engineer. He is also the branch's state president and previously stood as a One Nation Senate candidate for Victoria.
1 case
Franco Guardiani is a Melbourne businessman who has stood for public office in the city's northern suburbs. He contested the federal seat of Batman for the Palmer United Party at the 2013 election and as an independent in 2016, and he was nominated as One Nation's candidate for the Victorian district of Preston at the 2026 state election.
1 case
Rob Bonta is California’s attorney general.
2 cases and 1 statement
Radio host and co-host of The Breakfast Club.
1 case and 1 statement
