Joris DeeneA remarkable ruling by the correctional court Ghent of 3 November 2025, has intensified the debate on the limits of free speech and the definition of “press crimes” in the digital age. In a case that revolved around online defamation and stalking, the court ruled that a defamatory YouTube video may be a ‘printing press crime.
This interpretation has far-reaching implications. It means that such a case must be heard not by an ordinary correctional judge but by a people's jury in the assize court.
The facts: from online criticism to stalking
The case has its origins in a heated online debate. A university employee (hereafter ‘BP’) anonymously managed the Twitter account “Schild & Vrienden,” which criticized the radical right-wing movement “Shild en Vrienden. After BP's identity was revealed (”doxxed‘), he became the target of a wave of online hatred and threats.
Two specific defendants were on trial:
- Defendant 1 (BK1): The leader of “Schild en Vrienden” He published a YouTube video accusing BP of abusing his position at the university to leak private data (such as bank details and addresses) of S&V members. This was qualified as defamation.
- Defendant 2 (BK2): A sympathizer of the movement. He ordered incontinence materials (adult diapers) over the Internet and had them delivered to BP's private address, using false names such as “Mr. Schuld en Vrienden.” This qualified as stalking, IT forgery and using a false name.
The court's decision
The court delivered a split verdict on the two defendants.
Defendant 2: Stalking is not a joke
The court briskly dismissed BK2“s defense that sending the diapers was a ”student prank." The judge ruled that the act did constitute stalking.
It was a deliberate action to translate the online harassment into the physical world and the privacy of the victim's home. The implied message - “we know where you live” and that he would “shit his pants” with fear - severely disturbed the victim's peace of mind.
Even a single act can constitute stalking, according to the court, if it has “unremitting or recurring consequences.” BK2 was found guilty of stalking, IT forgery and false naming and sentenced to 70 hours of community service.
Defendant 1: Slander on YouTube is a press crime
The ruling on BK1 (the YouTube video) is legally the most remarkable. The court declared itself incompetent to rule on this defamation complaint.
The reasoning: the defamatory allegations were made through a public video, which the court said amounts to a printing press crime. According to article 150 of the Belgian Constitution press crimes (and political crimes) must be judged by the assize court, which works with a people's jury.
Legal analysis and interpretation: a modern take on the Constitution
This decision is noteworthy because the court deliberately departed from the traditional, restrictive interpretation of the Court of Cassation, which holds that a printing press crime requires a written element (see, e.g. Cass. 6 December 2023).
The Ghent judge opted for an “evolutionary interpretation” based on three pillars:
- The purpose of the Constitution (Ratio Legis). Constitutionalists in 1831 wanted to protect freedom of speech from government (represented by professional judges). The jury was seen as the ultimate guarantor of that freedom. The medium (then the ‘printing press’) was secondary to the goal (protection of public opinion).
- Technological neutrality The court states that it is absurd to make the legal protection depend on the medium. It would lead to bizarre situations: a defamatory video is not a press crime, but the same video with (automatically generated) subtitles is. The judge ruled that modern media such as YouTube have taken over the role of the classic printing press as “mass communication.”.
- Violation of the European Convention (ECHR). This is the strongest argument. Treating an opinion differently based on its form (written text vs. audiovisual video) is discrimination that violates the principle of equality. It violates Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the ECHR.
The court concluded that to avoid discrimination, any public expression through a mass medium (written, audio or video) that constitutes a crime should be treated as a press crime. The case against BK1 was therefore referred to the public prosecutor to bring (possibly) before the assize court.
What this specifically means
- For victims of online defamation: This ruling may complicate the prosecution of defamation by video. Correctional court proceedings are relatively quick and low-key. Assize proceedings are extremely heavy, lengthy and expensive, and in practice are rarely conducted for these types of offenses. There is a risk that perpetrators of video-defamation will be de facto more difficult to prosecute.
- For content creators (YouTubers, influencers): The stakes are raised. If this interpretation is followed, a controversial video deemed defamatory could lead to heavy assize proceedings. Jury protection is a double-edged sword: it provides a safeguard, but the procedure itself is a heavy penalty.
- For perpetrators of online stalking: BK2‘s conviction sends a clear message. Harassing a person online and bringing that harassment ’to the real world" (e.g., by placing unwanted orders) is no joke. It is criminal harassment (art. 442bis Criminal Code) and is punished as such.
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
What exactly is a printing press crime?
A printing press crime is a crime (such as defamation, insult) committed by expressing an opinion through a “public” means intended for mass dissemination (traditionally the ‘printing press’). The Belgian Constitution requires these crimes to be tried by a people's jury (assize court), with the important exception of crimes motivated by racism or xenophobia.
Is online stalking always punishable?
Yes. Harassment (Section 442bis Cc.) is the serious disturbance of a person's peace when the perpetrator knew (or should have known) that his conduct would have this effect. As this verdict demonstrates, even a single act, such as having a package delivered with an intimidating connotation, can suffice if the frame fits within a context of harassment.
What is the difference between the assize court and the correctional court?
The correctional court handles most misconducts (theft, beatings and injuries, fraud, stalking) and consists of one or three professional judges. The assize court handles the most serious crimes (murder, manslaughter) and, by virtue of the Constitution, also political crimes and crimes of the press. The assize court consists of 3 professional judges and a jury of 12 citizens (the people's jury) that rules on guilt.
Conclusion
This ruling from Ghent is twofold. On the one hand, it confirms that stalking that crosses the line between online and offline is severely punished. On the other hand, it throws a legal cat among the pigeons by reinterpreting the 19th-century “printing press” for the YouTube era. It is a bold attempt to apply the Constitution and ECHR coherently to new media, but in practice it potentially creates a more difficult path for victims of online defamation.
Dutch 
English