Face Á La Censure Riposte Étudiante: Analyzing Freedom of Expression for Students in France

College campuses across the globe are grappling with the regulation of diverse opinions in an educational environment where the safety of students, the integrity of fundamental freedoms, and the reputation of the institutions are at stake. Following the Oct. 7 attack on Israel and the resulting retaliation on the people of Gaza, college campuses have become a hotspot for heated debate and resulting administrative censorship.  

On Nov. 16, Sciences Po Students, professors, and administrators woke up to barricades stacked against the campus's front entrance accompanied by a sign that read, "Face À La Censure Riposte Étudiante.” That morning, a collaboration of several student organizations, namely, Solidaires Étudiant-e-s, had placed dumpsters, construction borders, and other materials blocking the entrance to campus and attendance to the daily lessons. In an explanatory email to peers and administrators, the students expressed their discontent with "Sciences Po's policy of censorship against any student support for Palestine," as well as the administration's “lack of support in response to threats from the far-right, including calls for rape and murder." The students also called out the administration for "at best psychological pressure, at worst harassment" directed at students supporting Palestine. Finally, they ended with concrete demands calling for freedom of expression within the law. 

The blockade quickly caught the community's attention; Menton residents, French news outlets, and campus staff observed the student protests. Dozens of students stationed themselves in front of the blockade in support of the cause, and at 3 p.m. that afternoon, with directions from Campus Director Yousef Halaoua, the police came to lift the blockade. More than twenty police officers in riot gear entered the back entrance of the campus and removed the blockade from behind the students. Several students received minor injuries as the officers shoved the barriers against them. Over the next hour, the authorities physically removed 66 students and informed them they would be fined for participating in an illegal protest.  

In the weeks leading up to this event, the atmosphere on campus was highly contentious between students and administration, and within the student body itself. The Oct. 7 attack led students to be fiercely vocal regarding the attack, overall historical conflict, and enduring humanitarian crisis. Discontentment was sparked in the students by several actions by the Sciences Po administration at both the campus and university levels. Shortly after the attack, and in the weeks following, Sciences Po Paris released several statements of acknowledgment and solidarity for the Israeli victims and those affected in relation, notably expressing less, if any, support for Palestinian victims. However, the triggering point was when several students received emails from the administration addressing the media they were posting on their private Instagram accounts regarding Israel and Palestine. Further, during this period, local news networks and French politicians publicly targeted Menton students for their support of Palestine, accusing the campus of antisemitism and terror apologia, which left the students feeling unsupported by their campus and their community. 

Students were unimpressed by the administration's immediate response to this distressing situation and, ultimately, questioned the legality behind new and old restrictions in France regarding freedom of expression and protest. Does the French government have the power to limit speech, and to that point, does Sciences Po have the authority to sanction students' private accounts? The complexities of French and international law and the context in which these laws are incessantly abused by French authorities may answer these concerns. 

In an interview with Ph.D. student Samantha Vaur, a Law and Politics seminar teacher at Sciences Po Menton, we discussed the specifics of French freedom of expression and protest laws. Primarily, she emphasized that "international law is very relevant," stating that "France is a state party to international conventions on human rights where you can find freedom of expression — Article 19 Universal Declaration, Article 19 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention, and Article 4 on the Elimination of Discrimination." Succinctly, France has, on an international level, committed to protecting these specified freedoms. Nevertheless, Vaur also identified the significance France has applied to the notion of Public Order, which outlines "both legal and physical guarantees of freedom, security, and peace of mind, which are necessary for individuals to live together in society."

In an article on the French Council of State, author Rim-Sarah Alouane argues that France has traditionally applied an extremely narrow application of Public Order in the name of ensuring public safety. Alouane further asserts that French politicians have repeatedly attempted to bypass the rule of law to combat terrorism. France’s approach to freedom of expression through anti-terrorism rhetoric is a common trend evident since the end of the 20th century when many assert that French jurisprudence shifted from protecting expression to combating terrorism. Finding a balance between the two has been challenging; on several occasions, the European Commission on Human Rights has considered France’s sanctions "disproportionate and, therefore, unnecessary in a democratic society." On Sciences Po campuses, many students feel anti-terrorism clauses are being abused to sanction opinions that do not resonate with the university’s position. In an interview with Islam Mohamed, another Law and Politics seminar teacher, he discussed the importance of understanding how “apology of terrorism has been abused by the French government as a legal tool” long before current conflicts brought the issue to the university stage, stating that the Israel-Palestine debates on campus have only added another layer to the issue’s complexities. 

When asked if there is a legitimate concern of terror apologia among students and if so, what is the appropriate administrative response of college campuses, he responded that:

“In general, there can be limitations to freedom of expression even outside the scope of terrorism. How we assess the legitimacy of these limitations is by assessing whether these limitations are proportionate to a particular security threat. Taking an action that limits freedom of expression that is disproportionate to a danger of the threat would be considered illegitimate by the European Union and French government.”

Ultimately, although freedom of expression and protest are recognized rights, French law has been instrumental in the consistent limitations of these rights. This debate, which is seen on both national and international scales, presented itself at Sciences Po following emails to three students who posted pro-Palestinian content that was identified by Sciences Po’s legal team as apology of terrorism. This came after the controversial statement by French Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin calling for pro-Palestinian demonstrations to be banned and perpetrators to be arrested in the name of disrupting public order. Although the legality of this directive is inconclusive, it certainly constructed an atmosphere of distrust and unrest among students.

Due to the debates forming around these emails, the student blockade, and several contentious meetings between students and administration, Director Yousef Halaoua held a meeting for the entire campus where he explained recent controversial administrative actions. Regarding the blockade, he explained that blocking an educational facility from running its daily functions is illegal and goes against school policy. Secondly, he cited the French penal code 421-2-5 as the motivation for emailing students. This code states: "Directly provoking acts of terrorism or publicly advocating these acts is punishable by five years' imprisonment and a fine of €75,000." The exact content of these students' posts is unknown; however, many students have questioned the legitimate authority the administration has over personal content and whether the administration was motivated by the student's political stance rather than the outlined legal limitations to freedom of expression. 

The continuity of this issue is made apparent by the atmosphere of distrust French authorities have created around the government's ability to protect certain rights. Amnesty International has published copious reports criticizing France's actions regarding protest and speech. In an article titled "France is not the free-speech champion it claims to be," Amnesty details how France's record on freedom of expression is incessantly bleak. The article cites the example of the European Court of Human Rights finding the convictions of 11 activists for campaigning for a boycott of Israeli products a violation of their free speech rights. Amnesty displays that the application of restrictive laws to this particular conflict is familiar. Following the Interior Minister's ban on pro-Palestinian protests, Amnesty International France's President stated that "The ban on all demonstrations in support of the Palestinians in France constitutes a serious and disproportionate attack on the right to demonstrate…A ban can only be legal if it is motivated by a specific threat and if it is demonstrated that no other less restrictive measure could guarantee public order." Again, the importance of the proportionality of a legal action to an issue of expression is apparent. 

In essence, despite international law protecting and outlining certain fundamental freedoms, states within international bodies exercise extensive discretion. The issue of freedom of expression and protest in France is complex and tremendously relevant when applied to a university campus with a political science focus. As previously mentioned, limitations to fundamental freedoms are legally sound; nevertheless, neither the media nor the students are ignorant of current trends directly affecting the acceptance of the expression of political opinion.