For several months, the rapper Medina has been the target of controversies, pressures and cancellations. His words are considered controversial, sometimes interpreted as anti -Semites or homophobic. Some call for deprogramming, others to the suspension of public subsidies to the structures that invite him. However, no judicial conviction has been pronounced against him. And that’s where the shoe is pinches.
In a law based on law, it is justice that contrasts, not rumors, hashtags or press releases. If Medina has committed an offense, that justice is seized, that it instructed and, if necessary, which it sanctions. But if we get around the procedures in the name of political or moral pressure, then we renounce the foundations of the rule of law.
The question is not whether we “like” or not Medina. The question is whether an artist can still express himself without being subject to an opinion court.
What is played out here is not only a media controversy: it is a much more insidious mechanism. We do not censor head -on, we remove a subsidy. This is what happened in Isère, when the department withdrew its support from a festival because Medina was in the programming. His remarks are deemed problematic, but never sentenced by a court. Result: we sanction a cultural structure not for what it does, but for whom it invites.
Medina is not above the laws. But it cannot be below the law.
This type of pressure is not a detail. It is a drift. Artistic freedom is protected by law. Cultural programming cannot be dictated by suspicion, by the fear of an uproar on social networks or by electoral considerations. And yet, these decisions based on perceptions, chain reactions, avoidance logics, become commonplace. The risk is clear: a self -censored, polite, sanitized culture.
Many programmers, elected officials or cultural officials now prefer to “play security”. Do not create controversy. Do not “take the Medina risk”. This is denounced by the union of current music in an open letter: artists are deprogrammed without having ever been condemned, only because their presence could disturb. It is no longer the law that sets the framework, it is the fear of controversy. A sort of permanent opinion of opinion, without procedure, without defense, without counterweight.
Let’s be clear: if an artist violates the law, he must respond to justice. But as long as no judgment is rendered, it is the law that prevails, not the vindictive. And above all, let us recall this: culture should not be the space of consensus. It is often the space of conflict, questioning, questioning. Medina is not above the laws. But it cannot be below the law.
Let the artists speak freely is to trust our democracy. Because a democracy that is afraid of its artists is a democracy that doubts itself.
The question of the conditionality of cultural subsidies has intensified. As sociologist Fabrice Raffin recalls in the mail of mayors, public aid is no longer just support for artistic projects: they have become a tool for symbolic and ideological control. Communities are increasingly guiding their funding according to “societal” criteria: displayed values, ability to avoid disorder. When the funding depends on compliance, the creation folds.
It is not a support for culture that we do then. It is a sorting in what is acceptable or not, authorized or not, heard or you. An insidious shift takes place: the subsidy is no longer there to support diversity, but to reassure institutions.
We do not protect the Republic by museing its artists. It is protected by affirming that, as long as justice has not spoken, artistic speech is legitimate.
This observation is today shared, including in institutions. A report by the Senate Culture Commission, published eight years after the LCAP law (relating to freedom of creation, architecture and heritage), draws up a worrying assessment. The rapporteurs – Else Joseph, Sylvie Robert and Monique de Marco – alert on the multiplication of attacks on freedom of creation and artistic dissemination. Despite the law, cases of censorship, intimidation or cancellation are multiplying. And self -censorship becomes a survival strategy. The law exists, but it is little used, little known and rarely defended by those who should be the guarantors.
The Republic cannot afford to switch to cultural governance by suspicion. She must remain faithful to her principles. An artist is not guilty because he bothers. The law is the only measure of just and unjust. And culture, in its plurality, is a pillar of democratic debate.
We do not protect the Republic by museing its artists. It is protected by affirming that, as long as justice has not spoken, artistic speech is legitimate. This is, too, bring freedom to life.
