The law modified by Gayssot was passed in the days when "the press" was the only form of mass media. I think the courts would probably rule that any form of media publicly distributed would fall within the intention of that law. There must be case law, separate from Gayssot, where this has been tested. I would say that Gayssot therefore covers film, TV, radio, printed brochures, the Web, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc, but not private speech including private email or text messages unless distributed in bulk. Public speaking if not recorded and reported,or recorded and reported without the consent of the speaker is a moot point, but I think likely, in practice, to be included, on the ground that anyone speaking in public can reasonably expect what he says to be reported, and may even be presumed to have intended it.Thames Darwin wrote:I think "press" is being interpreted in rather a broad way in the case of the Gayssot law. In theory, it applies to written material, as opposed to oral statements. The law was passed with Faurisson very particularly in mind, although you have to wonder why, given that he'd already been fined at least twice before 1990 under a racial incitement law. I presume it was to tack on larger fines for printing rather than just speaking.
[The constitutionality of Gayssot and its status under UN Human Rights rulings are separate matters not covered in this post.]
