Is doxing a printing press crime?

Doxing—the malicious online dissemination of personal data—is a growing problem. For a long time, it was unclear whether this fell under the jurisdiction of the Court of Assizes (for printing press crime) or the Correctional Court (for stalking). In a ruling of 4 June 2025, the Court of Cassation ruled that doxing is not a printing press crime. This means that perpetrators will have to answer to the correctional court more quickly.

The facts and legal context

The case that gave rise to this ruling revolves around a conflict between the founder of the satirical website ‘Nord Presse’ and a journalist from Sudpresse. Following an article, the defendant published a post on his platform in February 2016. This post contained a photo of the journalist, her name and the municipality where she lived - not her full address.

The message was accompanied by a comment in which the article was labeled a “rag”(torchon) and wishing “much courage” to those around her. The result was a flood of hate messages and threats to the journalist, who subsequently filed a complaint for stalking.

The key legal question was the jurisdiction of the court. The defense argued that the publication constituted a printing press crime. According to Article 150 of the Constitution, printing press crimes must be tried by the Court of Assizes (a jury court), unless they are motivated by racism or xenophobia. Both the council chamber and the court of appeal in Liège followed this reasoning and declared the correctional court incompetent.

The decision of the Court of Cassation.

In its ruling of 4 June 2025, the Court of Cassation overturns the earlier ruling of the Court of Appeal. The Court sets clear limits on what can be considered a printing press crime.

The Court reasoned that a printing press crime requires that there be a manifestation of opinion in writing. According to the Court, the mere publication of contact information, a photograph and a municipality for the purpose of disturbing the peace of a person (doxing) is not a manifestation of an opinion.

Criticism of the journalistic value of the article does not constitute a printing press crime in this specific context either. The Court states:

"L'opération consistant à critiquer la valeur journalistique d'un article de presse de cette même personne, dans le même but, ne saurait davantage être qualifié de délit de presse." (The act of criticizing the journalistic value of a press article by the same person, for the same purpose, cannot be classified as a press crime either.)

The Court concludes that there is no abuse of the freedom of speech, but rather an act aimed at disturbing the peace. As a result, the correctional court does indeed have jurisdiction.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling confirms a trend in case law to interpret the scope of the criminal press crime restrictively. The Court of Cassation applies a strict definition here: there must be criminal expression.

The analytical distinction made by the Court is interesting. The Court divides the internet post into different parts.

1. The data (photo, address): This does not in itself express an opinion and therefore cannot constitute a printing press crime.
2. The text: Although words such as “rag” (torchon) clearly express negative sentiment and thus an opinion, the Court finds that, in the context of doxing, this does not exceed the limits of freedom of expression as a printing press crime, but rather serves as an instrument of harassment.

This approach is not free of criticism. The division comes across as artificial: the text and the photograph formed one whole and the accompanying text directed the readers. Moreover, a constitutional question arises that the ruling does not fully answer: when a publication simultaneously disseminates factual information and contains an opinion-forming element, does it still fall under the protection of Section 150 of the Constitution? By ruling that the purpose (disturbing the peace) prevails over the means (text with opinion), the Court applies a purpose criterion that limits the constitutional basis for press freedom in a way that is not evidently acceptable to everyone.

By ruling that the text is not a criminal opinion within the meaning of art. 150 Constitution - and therefore not a printing press crime - the Court of Cassation also seems to be implicitly ruling on the punishability on the merits, something that is normally up to the judge of facts.

Nevertheless, the policy impact is clear: it avoids the need to systematically refer online harassment and doxing to the cumbersome and expensive Assize Court, which in practice often leads to impunity (after all, correctionalization of press offenses is constitutionally possible only for racially or xenophobically inspired offenses). By qualifying doxing as a common stalking crime and not a printing press crime, the path to correctional court remains open.

What this specifically means

This ruling has significant consequences for various parties involved in the digital landscape:

• For victims of doxing: The threshold to justice is being lowered. You do not have to worry that your case will get bogged down in procedural battles over the jurisdiction of the Court of Assizes. The perpetrator can be prosecuted more quickly and efficiently for stalking in the correctional court.
• For journalists and public figures: There is better protection against online hate campaigns. The excuse “this is satire” or “this is my opinion” (and therefore a printing press crime) will be less likely to hold up when private information is shared to provoke harassment.
• For online activists and bloggers: Criticism is allowed, but weaponizing private information (address, photos) to silence someone or instill fear is not protected by the privilege of printing press crimes. You risk a criminal conviction for harassment.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is the difference between a printing press crime and ordinary harassment?
A printing press crime is the expression of a punishable opinion in a published document. This is (usually) dealt with by the Court of Assizes. Harassment (such as stalking or doxing) is an offense aimed at disturbing someone's peace. This is dealt with by the correctional ourt, which leads to a faster legal process.

Is sharing a screenshot of an article now punishable by law?
Not in itself. Sharing an article or criticizing it falls under freedom of expression. It only becomes punishable (stalking) when you add private information or call for action with the aim of seriously disrupting the author's privacy and peace, as confirmed in this ruling.

Why is the jurisdiction of the court so important?
The Court of Assizes is a complex jury court that rarely convenes for printing press crimes. If doxing were to be considered a printing press crime, this would often mean in practice that perpetrators would go free because the Public Prosecutor's Office would not initiate this heavy procedure. The correctional court deals with criminal cases on a daily basis, making prosecution a real possibility.

Conclusion

With the ruling of June 4, 2025, the Court of Cassation puts the finishing touches to it: the dissemination of personal data as an instrument of harassment is not an opinion, but an act aimed at disturbing personal peace. This paves the way for more efficient prosecution of online harassment in Belgium in the correctional court. However, the constitutional discussion on the exact limits of this reasoning - in particular when a publication contains both factual data and an opinion-forming element at the same time - is thus not completely closed. The right to freedom of expression remains intact, but it is not a license to outlaw individuals online.