mardi 14 avril 2026

VU DU DROIT - Dissent is a struggle that comes at a price. But it also has a cost… le 14.04.2026

Dissent is a struggle that comes at a price. But it also has a cost…

Regis de Castelnau

avr. 14

LIRE DANS L'APP

With my gradual withdrawal from the day-to-day practice of law in mind, I have been running a small platform for expression for the past ten years or so. It began with the blog “Vu Du Droit,” which has published nearly 1,200 articles, supplemented by other contributions in the mainstream media. The goal was to offer a critical analysis of the state of the world from my own perspective—that of legal and judicial expertise.

Since 2022, what was already a struggle has taken a much harsher turn. Amid the authoritarian shift of the Macron regime, the onslaught of its relentless propaganda and digital developments have necessitated a diversification of strategies, with opposition to this propaganda becoming the primary struggle. The intensification of the confrontation—driven by coverage of the war in Ukraine and subsequently in the Middle East—first resulted in my exclusion from traditional media. We then had to organize a major presence on various social media platforms, which have become the preferred means of expression for dissent. Finally, we had to reorganize our direct outreach, notably through the new media platform SUBSTACK, the development of a YouTube channel, and regular contributions to activist alternative media outlets.

The legitimacy that this work has helped build—as evidenced by the feedback from my followers—leads me to believe that such a significant commitment comes at a price.

But naturally, it also has a cost. This is what I would like to clarify.

First, I want to confirm that, as far as I am concerned, this is a commitment, both personal and activist. And consequently, I do not intend to turn it into a source of additional income. As a retired lawyer, I receive a pension that I consider sufficient for my daily living expenses. Under these circumstances, everything my work generates is exclusively intended to cover its material costs.

Because this activity imposes a number of material constraints: there are, of course, the IT tools, which involve equipment that can sometimes be expensive, and the need for assistance and support from professionals. Just a small example that, in the end, is not insignificant: internet connections. Frequent outages in fiber networks require maintaining two parallel subscriptions, including one with Starlink. There are, of course, the essential software tools (AI, translations, editing, dictation, etc.), most of which are now available only through subscriptions that can be quite expensive. The same goes for those enabling effective use of social media. Because here too, small streams make big rivers… And the problem is exactly the same with essential news sources. While monitoring the news is time-consuming, it is ultimately costly as well. We’ll stop there, even if I’m forgetting some things, such as the need for support in the face of the censorship pressures we face (multiple complaints filed with the press council and legal proceedings under press law).

The use of participatory platforms is very useful, but it is limited to one-off projects.

This is why the SUBSTACK solution is invaluable. But I am currently facing a dilemma—one that stems from a contradiction. When we express ourselves, regardless of the medium, we want to be read or heard by as many people as possible. But if we switch to a closed subscription system, this drastically reduces our audience. Fewer readers and more money—that will never be my goal. That is why, after some trial and error, I adopted a model on Substack that consists of publishing almost everything as open access, leaving comments completely open to foster a space for debate, and reserving access to the archives for those who have made the effort to subscribe.

I’ve found that developing this model in terms of “financial contributions” has been a struggle. The growth of free subscriptions has been extremely encouraging, while that of paid subscriptions—which I was counting on to sustain this resource—has been rather disappointing.

Consequently, I will of course thank those who have made this effort and those who use the one-time “coffee” contribution. They can be assured of my gratitude, both for the practical financial support and for the invaluable moral support it represents.

However, I felt it necessary to switch to “paid subscription campaign” mode here today.

The monthly subscription is five euros, cancellable at any time. Since I started on Substack nine months ago, I’ve published 214 articles—that’s nearly 25 per month. Which brings the cost per article for subscribers down to a mere 20 cents…

I fully understand that this might be a hurdle, as I’m far from the only one asking for this support.

I’d like to add at this point that these contributions provide absolutely essential moral support. I believe I’ve had a long life of commitments, which have unfolded within the context of collective endeavors. The current one is marked by solitude. The struggle is obviously part of a global fight. But for me, it unfolds in daily solitude. This isn’t uncomfortable, but the need to feel that one is doing useful work is still essential. This financial contribution I’m asking for today (with this overly long post) obviously serves that purpose.

Yours faithfully.

Avant de partir, merci de m’offrir un café.