Can a defamatory post on X (Twitter) be a ‘printing press crime’?

You are confronted with defamatory or offensive posts on social media such as X (formerly Twitter). You are considering a criminal complaint, but are unsure about its feasibility. The answer is complex: yes, the Belgian Court of Cassation has reaffirmed in a ruling of 21 October 2025 that public, defamatory posts on social media can indeed constitute a ‘printing press crime. This has far-reaching consequences: the correctional court has no jurisdiction, and the case must basically go before the assize court.

The facts and legal context of the case

The case that led to the Cassation ruling began with a series of Twitter messages. Following a report on the VRT program ‘Terzake,’ a defendant (B.A.) posted several messages on his public Twitter account. In those messages, he described the civil party (M.S.) as a “crook,” among other things.

The civil party filed a complaint and the defendant was prosecuted for various charges, including IT forgery (A), stalking (B) and defamation (C).

On appeal, however, the Brussels Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction. The court's reasoning? The Twitter messages, which implied an opinion of the author and were disseminated publicly, constituted a possible printing press crime. According to the Belgian Constitution (article 150), printing press crimes fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the assize court, and thus not the correctional court. Because the other facts (stalking, forgery) were inseparable from these messages, the court declared itself incompetent for the entire case.

The civil party then appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing that Twitter messages are not a “press” and that the facts should therefore be assessed by the criminal court.

The decision of the Court of Cassation.

The Court of Cassation rejected the cassation provision on October 21, 2025. It followed the reasoning of the court of appeal and upheld the broad interpretation of the term ‘printing press crime.

The gist of the Court of cassation's reasoning:

1. What is a printing press crime? The Court reiterates the definition: it requires a punishable expression of opinion (a thought or judgment) in a text that has been reproduced by a printing press or similar process.
2. Is X (Twitter) a ‘similar process’? Yes. The Court explicitly held that “digital dissemination of texts, including the posting of publicly accessible messages on social media, constitutes such a similar process”.
3. Does a personal account make a difference? No. The fact that this is a personal account and not a traditional medium does not negate the qualification.
4. What counts as ‘opinion’? The civil party argued that the tweets were mere information or representations of rulings. The Court of cassation swept this aside. There is no requirement that the opinion “have any particular social relevance or weight.” A “simple defamatory allegation, such as describing a person as a crook, can constitute a printing press crime”.
5. What about intent? The civil party argued that the tweets were intended to intimidate and harass, not to publicly disseminate information. The Court stated that the motive (defaming versus informing) is irrelevant to the characterization of the crime.

The Court's conclusion is clear: the court of appeal correctly ruled that the Twitter messages contained an expression of opinion that was made public via a process similar to printing (social media).Therefore, the assize court has jurisdiction, not the correctional court.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling is an affirmation of how the 19th century Article 150 of the Constitution is applied in the 21st century. The original purpose of this article was to protect freedom of the press from the government, by reserving cases about the press (such as sedition or slander) to a people's jury (the assize court).

This evolution has been going on for some time. Caslaw had to adapt to new technologies.

• Back in 2012, the Court of Cassation (Cass. 6 March 2012) ruled that the digital distribution of texts is a process “similar to the printing press.” The Court ruled at the time that the concept of “printing press” must be interpreted in an evolutionary manner, taking into account the spirit of the constitutional legislator. He wanted to safeguard the “uninterrupted dissemination of ideas among the masses.” From that perspective, telecommunications tools such as the internet are also a “printing press.”
• In 2022, the Court (Cass. 18 January 2022) made this explicit for social media. It stated that “the posting of publicly accessible messages on social media” constitutes such a similar process.

The 2025 ruling builds directly on this, but the focus remains on text (‘writings’). A more complex question is what happens to purely audiovisual expressions of opinion, such as defamation in a YouTube video with no accompanying text. In an earlier blog we analyzed a Ghent judgement in which a court ruled that a YouTube video could also qualify as a printing press crime. This interpretation, which deviates from traditional cassation case law requiring a “written text” ,demonstrates how courts are struggling with the application of the Constitution to new media.

However, the ruling on Twitter messages leads to a paradoxical situation:

• Protection turns against the victim: What was intended as a safeguard for freedom of speech has become an almost insurmountable procedural hurdle for victims of online defamation. Assize proceedings are extremely burdensome, time-consuming, expensive and rarely initiated by the public prosecutor for such offenses.
• Broad interpretation confirmed: The Court opts for a technologically broad interpretation. ‘Printing press’ means any form of digital, public dissemination of text. ‘Opinion’ means any allegation, no matter how simplistic.
• The ‘coherence' is crucial: The Court also confirmed that when a printing press crime (the tweets) is “inseparable” from other crimes (such as stalking or forgery), the assize court has jurisdiction over the entire case. This ‘pulls’ the entire case away from the correctional court.

This ruling makes a criminal approach to online defamation through public social media posts virtually impossible in practice. The Court of Cassation itself notes that this does not leave the victim out in the cold: he can still pursue his claim in civil court.

What this specifically means

The practical implications of this ruling are significant, both for victims and perpetrators of online defamation.

For the victim

Are you being publicly called out, slandered or falsely accused online (e.g. on X, Facebook, or in the comments of a news site)?

• The criminal route is not recommended: Filing a criminal complaint with the police will most likely result in a dismissal or, if it does go to trial, a finding of lack of jurisdiction (as in this case). The chances of your case ever going before the assize court are zero.
• The civil route is the solution: The Court of Cassation itself points out the alternative route. You can summon the offender directly to the civil court. YYou will not initiate criminal proceedings, but rather a claim for damages based on Articles 6.6-6.7 of the Civil Code (fault, damages and causal link). This is a much quicker, cheaper and more effective procedure to have the perpetrator ordered to pay compensation for the reputational damage you have suffered.

For the perpetrator (the author of the post)

This statement appears to be a free pass for online defamation, but it is not.

• Criminal (almost) immune: You are indeed at little risk of criminal conviction by the criminal court for public posts.
• Very vulnerable in civil proceedings: However, you can be held personally liable for the financial consequences of your “speech.” If a victim can prove that your post was a wrongful act (e.g., defamation) and that he/she suffered damages as a result (reputational damage, loss of customers, etc.), a civil court may order you to pay potentially substantial damages.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Is every insult on social media a printing press crime?
No, not necessary. It must be a publicly accessible written message that contains an actionable opinion (such as slander or defamation). In principle, private messages (such as a DM on Instagram or a WhatsApp message) do not fall under this because the element of “effective publicity” or “multiplication” is missing.

What is the difference between the assize court and the correctional court?
The correctional court handles most misdemeanors (theft, fraud, beatings and injuries) and is staffed by professional judges. The assize court deals with the most serious crimes (such as murder), political crimes and press crimes. In the assize court, the question of guilt is answered by a people's jury of 12 citizens. Assize proceedings are much longer, more complex and expensive.

Can I then do nothing at all against slander on X (Twitter) or Facebook?
Yep. Although the criminal route (through a complaint to the police) is in practice closed by this case law, the civil route is wide open. The Court of Cassation itself confirmed that the victim can turn to the civil courts. You can sue the perpetrator through an attorney to claim compensation for the reputational damage suffered.

Conclusion and advice

The Court of Cassation confirms a consistent line in its jurisprudence: a defamatory message on a public social media account such as X (Twitter) is a ‘printing press crime. In practice, this neutralizes criminal prosecution because the correctional court lacks jurisdiction and the case must go to the assize court.

Therefore, the most strategic and effective route for victims is not the criminal complaint, but the civil claim for compensation.