The Volokh Conspiracy - "French Court Rules for Newspaper That Printed Muhammad Cartoons":

So reports the New York Times:

A French court ruled Thursday in favor of a satirical weekly newspaper that faced charges brought by two Muslim groups after it published cartoons featuring the Prophet Muhammad that had caused an international uproar when a Danish newspaper published most of them.

The charges, brought by the Paris Mosque and the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, accused the newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, and its editor, Philippe Val, of "publicly abusing a group of people because of their religion."

The charges could have resulted in a six-month prison term for Mr. Val and a fine of about $29,000 against the newspaper....

The court acknowledged that one of the cartoons, which depicted Muhammad wearing a turban shaped like a bomb, might offend some Muslims. But it said that, given the context of its publication, it saw no "deliberate intention of directly and gratuitously offending the Muslim community." ...

The Union of Islamic Organizations of France said it would appeal the decision....

My question, for those who know French law on this -- what if a court had concluded that the newspaper did deliberately intend to offend Muslims, perhaps because it thought Islam was an evil religion? Consider how quite a few people who think ill of Christianity do deliberately intend to offend Christians, and how quite a few people who think ill of Scientology deliberately intend to offend Scientologists, at least in the sense of knowing that their actions will offend and not caring, or perhaps even hoping that those who the speaker things adhere to an evil or foolish ideology will indeed be offended. Would the editor have then gone to jail, on the grounds that the offense was deliberate, direct, and gratuitous? Would the newspaper have been fined?

	[Eugene Volokh, March 23, 2007 at 5:02pm] Trackbacks "French Court Rules for Newspaper That Printed Muhammad Cartoons": So reports the New York Times: A French court ruled Thursday in favor of a satirical weekly newspaper that faced charges brought by two Muslim groups after it published cartoons featuring the Prophet Muhammad that had caused an international uproar when a Danish newspaper published most of them. The charges, brought by the Paris Mosque and the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, accused the newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, and its editor, Philippe Val, of "publicly abusing a group of people because of their religion." The charges could have resulted in a six-month prison term for Mr. Val and a fine of about $29,000 against the newspaper.... The court acknowledged that one of the cartoons, which depicted Muhammad wearing a turban shaped like a bomb, might offend some Muslims. But it said that, given the context of its publication, it saw no "deliberate intention of directly and gratuitously offending the Muslim community." ... The Union of Islamic Organizations of France said it would appeal the decision.... My question, for those who know French law on this -- what if a court had concluded that the newspaper did deliberately intend to offend Muslims, perhaps because it thought Islam was an evil religion? Consider how quite a few people who think ill of Christianity do deliberately intend to offend Christians, and how quite a few people who think ill of Scientology deliberately intend to offend Scientologists, at least in the sense of knowing that their actions will offend and not caring, or perhaps even hoping that those who the speaker things adhere to an evil or foolish ideology will indeed be offended. Would the editor have then gone to jail, on the grounds that the offense was deliberate, direct, and gratuitous? Would the newspaper have been fined?