No one says so in the article below, but it’s abundantly clear what’s happening here. France 2 blurred the statue because it might be offensive to Muslims, and that could lead to violent unrest. There will be much, much more of this sort of thing in the future. Some enterprising French sculptor could offer to sculpt clothes for this couple and others who are similarly immodestly displayed.
During the evening news broadcast hosted by Léa Salamé on France 2, a statue located in a public square in Issy-les-Moulineaux appeared on screen with its image blurred. The segment sparked a reaction among viewers, prompting the editorial team behind the “20 Heures” broadcast to issue an apology.
Is this the latest controversy surrounding Léa Salamé’s news broadcast on France 2? It must be said that since taking the helm of the “20 Heures” program, the presenter has faced a steady stream of criticism and disparaging comments regarding her new role. On Tuesday, May 19, however, viewers’ complaints were not directed at her personally, but rather at the individual responsible for ensuring the anonymity of contributors appearing on the program.
While a report on standards and regulations in France was airing, one particular sequence caught the attention of internet users. It featured an interview with an expert, Benjamin Morel—a constitutional scholar and senior lecturer in public law. The segment drew attention not because of the content of the expert’s remarks, but because a statue—blurred out—was visible in the background. The artwork in question is on display in a public square in Issy-les-Moulineaux, where the filmed interview took place. Titled *Amour* (Love), it was created in 1894 by the sculptor Louis Cosme Demaille. It depicts a nude couple in love, lightly embracing.
On social media, several internet users voiced their bewilderment regarding France Télévisions’ motives for blurring the statue. Among them was entrepreneur Jérôme Bourreau-Guggenheim. “Is this a new standard being applied by France 2’s 8 PM news broadcast (Léa Salamé)—blurring statues in its reports? A word, Arcom? Catherine Pégard? Sébastien Lecornu?” he fumed on X, going so far as to directly call upon the audiovisual regulatory body.
Others were quick to comment on the baffling sequence as well. “Artificial intelligence comes to the aid of stupidity. Respecting the anonymity of statues—even the European Union never thought of that,” one user quipped. “Let’s not forget that these are the same people who used to call Catholics ‘uptight,'” another user retorted angrily, assuming the artwork had been blurred by France Télévisions due to the nudity involved.
In an effort to nip the controversy in the bud, the editorial team behind France 2’s *20 Heures* broadcast issued an apology on X. “Last night, during a segment regarding the number of laws in France, we mistakenly aired an interview featuring a blurred background. This individual initiative was entirely unwarranted. We offer our apologies to our viewers,” they stated. Statues will no longer be rendered invisible on France Télévisions’ channels.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
I actually welcome blurring public nudity, but I’ll still maintain that despite all this, mohammedans are still not our allies
ploome says
Obama covered the cross when speaking at a Catholic location…
and Obama was Christian??
somehistory says
I’ve never *appreciated* nudity. Not the little baby on a bear-skinned rug (child abuse imo), nor paintings and statues representing human nudity.
I just look away.
It’s up to others if they want to look or not. Evidently, a lot of people like to see it. That is their choice. some of us don’t.
As long as I don’t get the treatment of eyes taped open and forced to look, I’ll not make a fuss if others want to look.
muzzies have no problem forcing others down to their low, but cry offense at every opportunity….as if they have morals.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Yeah. These days, they blur the genitals of infants if they show them nude, which is something I wish they did decades ago – when we were infants. I never considered it “cute” to show them
somehistory says
Not cute. and the child will one day grow up and see the pics. I always imagine how the baby will feel when he sees what was done to him when he could not protest.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
somehistory
If you remember, in 2000, President George W Bush showed a nude picture of Jeb as a little boy – not even an infant. I immediately lost half the respect I had for that man: I didn’t think it was either cute nor funny
somehistory says
thank you, Infidel, but I don’t recall seeing it. Had I, more than half would have been instantly gone.
I lived in Texas when he was governor. I had a measure of respect for him then, Now, zip.
Little kids are people with feelings. They deserve respect for that alone. Taking those pics is child abuse because it is disrespectful of their feelings and dignty.
Wellington says
When I visited the Vatican Museum in 1972 I was intrigued by the fact that nude sculptures had had fig leaf “additions” placed in the genital area. Well, religion in general seems to have a problem with sexuality and tries to regulate it a great deal. Saint Paul himself argues for chastity but rather reluctantly goes along with marriage as a second choice for those who cannot “control themselves”—1 Corinthians 7:8-9.
Look, I fully understand that sexual activity should be engaged in responsibly (e.g., have the child after marriage and not before), but on the matter of nudity I have never looked upon the nude figure (if finely formed—this is important) as some kind of negative in great works of art. I would reference as an example here the many splendid sculptures of ancient Greek art. There is also nude photography which, at its best, can be stunning, though I think it better in black & white.
Brian Ozzy says
Absolutely! Totally agree. Some of those other comments are just prudish.
Rufolino says
Until recently times it seems almost everyone had “a problem with sexuality”. Many still have.
On show in the Victoria & Albert Museum is the huge metal figleaf hung on the private parts of the huge plaster cast of Michelangelo’s “David” whenever Queen Mary visited.
Tim gallagher says
That bit about violent unrest is the key to it all. There are decent, civilised people who are calm and peaceful most of the time and then there thuggish, barbaric Muslims who are always behaving violently. And this seems to scare authorities into caving in to avoid Muslims and their violent unrest. Muslims don’t belong in any civilised society. They are barbaric scum in endless ways.
jerry glenn says
France surges in the European Islamopandering derby.