There is a long tradition of shielding judges from any sort of accountability in France. It is illegal for instance to criticize a court decision.
Even the most appalling wrongdoings have no consequences on judges. Like the judge instructing the Outreau case (an alleged poedophile ring that resulted in dozens of people sent to jail and/or loosing custody of their children, before the whole case collapsed when it became clear the only evidence was the false testimony of a single person). The judge responsible faced a parliamentary hearing, where he appeared unfit for the job, incapable of even speaking in public. As far as I am aware it didn't even dent his career. Or the Nice court affair, where the president of the court was caught tipping off a gangster from his freemason lodge. The judge was quietly sent to retirement and never saw the bars of a jail.
Judges in France are highly politicized, as the "mur des cons" scandal illustrated. There is a long tradition of judges prosecuting a political party before resigning to take a senior position in a competing party (Thierry Jean-Pierre, Eva Joly, Eric Halphen, etc).
It is therefore unsurprising to see some law trying to prevent surfacing any evidence of partiality and/or wrong doing.
You have to understand that France has some other traits that are way more progressive than in the US: crossing the street is not a crime, you won't be arrested for drinking in the street, women work more than in the US, and they get married less, birth control and abortions are covered by insurance.
The balance is different than in the US, but people have a longer life expectancy with a way lower GDP/capita, so something is seriously right.
What does any of this have to do with censorship? Are you saying France is forgiven because they have other progressive policies? Seems like a very strange stance to take.
It's not true. They're talking about a law from 1958 (under a conservative president, like almost all of them until 1981) that makes it illegal to criticise a court decision in order to undermine the legitimacy of justice.
It's okay to criticise a court decision if you just don't agree with it, but not to say "see this judgments? it shows all judges are corrupted".
It is illegal to try to criticise a court decision in a way that is designed to impede the justice system and/or to interfere with the independence of the judiciary.
I am not a lawyer but as far as I am aware it is illegal to say publicly for instance that a court decision was politically motivated. You might argue that it would undermine the justice system but this is 100% in lack of accountability territory.
You can say publicly that a court decision was politically motivated. What matters is how it is said and somewhat by whom (a member of the government might be held to higher standards).
Even the most appalling wrongdoings have no consequences on judges. Like the judge instructing the Outreau case (an alleged poedophile ring that resulted in dozens of people sent to jail and/or loosing custody of their children, before the whole case collapsed when it became clear the only evidence was the false testimony of a single person). The judge responsible faced a parliamentary hearing, where he appeared unfit for the job, incapable of even speaking in public. As far as I am aware it didn't even dent his career. Or the Nice court affair, where the president of the court was caught tipping off a gangster from his freemason lodge. The judge was quietly sent to retirement and never saw the bars of a jail.
Judges in France are highly politicized, as the "mur des cons" scandal illustrated. There is a long tradition of judges prosecuting a political party before resigning to take a senior position in a competing party (Thierry Jean-Pierre, Eva Joly, Eric Halphen, etc).
It is therefore unsurprising to see some law trying to prevent surfacing any evidence of partiality and/or wrong doing.