Filmed trials: is the right to be forgotten possible?

THE QUESTION:

Éric Dupond-Moretti thinks of Justice what Jacques Audiard thinks of the Virgin Mary:

"For her to exist, she must appear from time to time"

.

From there, his idea of ​​filming the hearings - whether they are public or behind closed doors - and of broadcasting them, by contextualizing them, on a weekly basis on a television channel.

Certainly, safeguards are provided: written consent before filming a non-public hearing, the right to blurring during hearings broadcasts which are requested by the parties.

An obligation to remove, five years after the first broadcast, "any element of identification" (it is still necessary to know, what will concretely overlap, this obligation).

Read also: When justice launches into the audiovisual sector in the name of pedagogy

This device, which reshuffles the cards of the press law of 1881 and lifts the ban on filming justice to prefer a conditional authorization regime, is not contested on the merits, neither by the magistrates, nor by lawyers.

But everyone believes that this new device is without a net.

In particular with regard to "the right to be forgotten".

Asked about this, Céline Parisot, president of the Union Syndicale des Magistrates, declared Wednesday to France Info: "I n

this process of large-scale distribution, once we have filmed, we no longer have any control. of the dissemination of these trials.

The Minister talks about the right to be forgotten, it is completely absurd to think that in the age of social networks, we have a right to be forgotten

”.

Is she right?

Will the right to be forgotten still be possible?

This article is for subscribers only.

You have 72% left to discover.

Subscribe: 1 € the first month

Can be canceled at any time

I ENJOY IT

Already subscribed?

Log in