In-article:

The magazine “Public” sentenced for having invaded the privacy of Thomas Sotto and Mayada Boulos


Louise Bernard, with Solène Delinger

The people magazine “Public” was convicted at first instance and on appeal for publishing an article revealing details of the “intimacy” and “private life” of Thomas Sotto and his partner Mayada Boulos. “Public” will have to pay 17,000 euros to the couple. However, it was an article in the “Figaro” which revealed their love story, a few days before the publication of the “Public” paper.

People magazine Audience was convicted at first instance and on appeal for having invaded the privacy of Thomas Sotto and his partner. The newspaper will therefore have to pay them 17,000 euros in total. This is the informedwhich reveals information, a new medium of economic investigation.

Formal notices sent before the publication of the article

Last year, Audience had published an article on the relationship between the journalist and the communication adviser to the Prime Minister, Jean Castex. An article titled “Devastating love at first sight”, accompanied by photos taken by a paparazzi. The media the informed says that Thomas Sotto and Mayada Boulos had nevertheless sent preventive notices to several newspapers to prevent the publication of articles. What did not convince Audience to publish his.

Le Figaro revealed their affair

Still, it wasn’t the magazine that revealed their story, but an article in the Figaro, Few days ago. The newspaper wondered about the conflict of interest that this liaison could represent. Because Thomas Sotto was then at the head of the political program of France 2 with Léa Salamé and was going to be it during all the campaign for the presidential election. Mayada Boulos was, she, communication adviser to the Prime Minister at the time, Jean Castex.

What motivated the court to convict Audience, is that the weekly has gone too far. He published details which “obviously fall within the intimacy of their private lives”. While the article of Figaro revealed information “relating to the legitimate information of the public”.

Thomas Sotto had given up the presentation of the political program

The court considered that the revelation of their affair was “likely to fuel a debate of general interest”, a debate on “the independence and neutrality of the media”. Which can “justify an invasion of the right to privacy”. The disclosure of their relationship by Le Figaro had also pushed Thomas Sotto to withdraw and give up the presentation of the political program of France 2 and the political interview of Telematin.

the informed also reveals in passing that Thomas Sotto had wanted to ban the publication of the article in the Figaro, with a notice from the newspaper. But the daily had decided to publish his article anyway.



Source link -76