A bad thing? Colour Blind state + restrictions of freedom of speech.

[ajaxfetish]

It shows what a geek I am, but I was most interested by this ambiguous modifier.

Scared by all this controversy, Zemmour was sacked by his main employers, the Right-wing newspaper, Le Figaro, who then relented after an internet campaign and 100-strong demonstration outside their office

Zemmour was scared, and so he was sacked? Makes no sense. Surely they must mean his employers were scared, and so sacked him. Putting it in passive voice lines the modifier up with the wrong nominal phrase. On the other hand, just switching it to active doesn't really fix it, as then you'd have

Scared by all this controversy, Zemmour's employers, the Right-wing newspaper, Le Figaro, who then relented after an internet campaign and 100-strong demonstration outside their office, sacked him

Which is obviously bad, and for two reasons: first, it saves the main verb till almost the end of the sentence as the reader struggles through the very dense and complex subject noun phrase, forcing them to store a great deal of structure and information in short-term memory while waiting to find out what the sentence is about; second, the relative clause [who then relented . . .], doesn't even make sense preceding the sacking.

This sentence has serious problems. IMO the writer should have scrapped it entirely and started over expressing that information another way.

Ajax

edit: another reason not to put it in active voice is that this is the first mention of Zemmour's employers. It makes for much smoother reading if you introduce a sentence with known information, such as Zemmour or the controversy, and only then introduce new material. I'd probably end up going with
"This controversy frightened Zemmour's employers, the Right-wing newspaper, Le Figaro, who sacked Zemmour, though they relented after an internet campaign and 100-strong demonstration outside their office"