...The trial will take place in the august halls of the Tribunal de Grande Instance in Paris on the 14th of September 2006. Philippe Karsenty stands accused of casting dishonor on the reputation of the plaintiffs by suggesting, in a brief article published by Media-Ratings on 22 November 2004: “Arlette Chabot and Charles Enderlin should be immediately dismissed.” The sober factual article, devoid of inflammatory language and personal attacks, politely accepts the challenge inherent in the lawsuit against X and expresses the readiness of Media-Ratings to defend in court as it defends on its site the claim that the al-Dura news report is a staged scene. It should be mentioned that Karsenty has been sued three times in the short life of Media Ratings, simply for doing what media watch organizations do. The media are quick to remind critics that error is human but apparently in France a media watch organization isn’t even free to express itself when it is not mistaken. The incriminated article is based on concrete details that have led serious analysts to conclude that the al-Dura death scene cannot possibly represent the shooting, wounding, and killing described in Enderlin’s voice off commentary and elaborated in a stock narrative indiscriminately repeated ever since the incident allegedly occurred...

great day! the decision of the judges is oct 19, but the procureur (an impartial court advisor) came down entirely on philip's side and recommended dropping charges. wonderful.

...The presiding judge and his two associates (I’ll get the details straight tomorrow) were human, humane, attentive. Especially the judge. He listened attentively, smiled, put people at ease, engaged in no silly manners or intimidating attitudes. The prosecutor, was bright, forceful, and forthright. Her name is Madame Halimi-Selam (more on that later). If the judge follows her appreciation of the case, Karsenty will win. He is free to ignore her interpretations and recommendations but I don’t think he will.

I can’t save this anecdote for tomorrow: a journalist from Le Figaro said to a photographer sitting near him in the press box—the prosecutor looked at the case that way because she’s Jewish. I’ll find out his name tomorrow and tell you a bit more about him.

There were not many journalists in the courtroom, not many people in the audience…they don’t know what they missed.

It was a beautiful trial. It was held in an atmosphere of respect for justice...

...Then came Madame la Procureur de la Republique. A screen writer could not have written a better speech. All the best tropes of civil society — honesty, accountability, fairness, transparency, context… the dangerous powers of an uncriticized quatrième état (fourth estate)… the right of the public to know, and therefore the responsibility of France2 to show the tapes of their cameraman Talal abu Rahmeh… the fact that what Phillipe had said was in fact defamation of Charles Enderlin’s reputation as a journalist, but that the evidence more than supported such an accusation… that this was not the typical case of libel, where the person slings unconsidered insults at another, but a carefully studied and considered criticism… that any sharp language was more than justified in the context of a case where one wants to attract attention… that it was not malice to want que Charles Enderlin tombe [that Charles Enderlin should fall].

Oh, and did I mention that she made numerous references to the testimony, that witnesses had come from far away to testify, that this was not just a French issue, but an international issue, and that many had suffered a great deal because of these images...