May I film the police and post the footage online?

Filming police interventions with a smartphone is a common phenomenon. However, the question is where to draw the line between the right to information and criminal offenses. A ruling of the Court of First Instance East Flanders, Ghent Division of 9 October 2025 clarifies that although filming is permitted, editing and distributing images online with false accusations can lead to a conviction for defamation and violations of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The facts: a police intervention and the online aftermath

During a tumultuous police intervention in Ghent, a bystander, calling himself a "YouTuber," began filming the officers. He ignored repeated orders to keep his distance and behaved verbally aggressive, further inflaming the tense atmosphere. After his arrest, he refused to remove the footage.

Shortly thereafter, the man published edited video clips on his Instagram page. The footage had been taken out of context, selectively edited and commented on. Things escalated when he posted a photo of a specific police inspector with the false accusation that the officer shouted a racist statement ("Get the macaques") during the intervention. This false statement was even artificially amplified and repeated in an edited video. A second defendant also distributed footage of the same officer during another intervention. The inspector concerned filed a complaint with civil party status.

The court's decision

The correctional court found the defendants guilty of multiple crimes and convicted them on criminal and civil charges.

1. Contempt of police: The court found that the defendants went beyond mere criticism of police conduct. By knowingly attributing a false and racist statement to an identifiable officer, their purpose was to harm the inspector's honor and expose him to public contempt. This met the conditions of the crime of contempt.
2. Unlawful processing of personal data (GDPR): Publishing images in which individuals are recognizable is a processing of personal data. In principle, this is prohibited without consent. The defendants invoked the exception for journalistic purposes, but the court did not follow that reasoning. The court ruled that the manipulated and defamatory images served not to inform the public, but to personally attack an officer. Consequently, there was no legal basis for the publication.
3. Rebelliousness: The first defendant was also convicted of unruly conduct, as he deliberately disobeyed the officers' orders and was verbally aggressive and threatening.

The first defendant was given 50 hours of community service. The second defendant was given a simple guilty plea because the proceedings had dragged on unreasonably long. Together, they must pay the victims compensation of 3,250 euros.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling balances between two fundamental rights: the freedom of speech and the right to privacy protection and reputation.

On the one hand, the right to film and criticize police action is a cornerstone of the democratic rule of law. It can contribute to transparency and control of the executive power. However, this right is not absolute.

On the other hand, everyone, including a police officer in office, enjoys protection against attacks on his honor and good name. Here, the court convicted the defendants of contempt, a crime specifically aimed at protecting bearers of public authority. According to article 276 of the Criminal Code contempt occurs when a person insults a police officer in the performance of his duties through actions, words, gestures or threats.

In addition, the ruling confirms that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) also applies to police officers. Although they perform a public function, they do not lose their right to data protection. The "journalistic exception" is interpreted restrictively and does not apply when the publication is primarily aimed at harming an individual rather than informing the public about a matter of public interest. Here, the manipulative nature of the images was a decisive element for the court.

What this specifically means

This ruling has important practical implications for several parties:

• For the citizen or "citizen journalist":
  • Filming is allowed: The mere recording of a police intervention, for example as evidence, is in principle not punishable.
  • Publishing is risky: Be extremely careful when posting images online. Make sure individuals (officers, suspects, bystanders) are unrecognizable unless you have a clear legal basis.
  • Avoid false accusations: Adding comments that are factually incorrect and could damage someone's reputation is the quickest route to a criminal conviction for contempt or defamation. Stick to the facts or state clearly that it is a personal opinion.
• For the police officer:
  • You are not an outlaw: This ruling confirms that you can take legal action against false and damaging online campaigns.
  • File complaint: You can file a complaint with civil party status to seek both punishment and compensation for material and moral damages suffered.
• For police zones and government:
  • Staff support: This ruling provides an important precedent to protect staff members from online harassment and defamation.
  • Awareness raising: It can serve as a basis for internal guidelines and communication about the rights and obligations of agents and citizens when filming interventions.

FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)

Is filming a police intervention always allowed?
The filming itself is usually allowed, as long as you do not interfere with police action or ignore the officers' orders. The problem almost always arises in what you do with the footage afterwards.

What is the difference between criticism of the police and contempt?
The crucial difference is between expressing an opinion and spreading an untrue fact. Criticism is an opinion ("I thought the performance was excessive") and falls under freedom of speech. Contempt of police is a crime. In this case, contempt consisted of maliciously attributing a specific and untrue fact ("Officer X shouted racist slogans") with the intent to attack the officer's honor and authority. A subjective opinion is allowed, but spreading false facts to harm is punishable.

Does the GDPR also apply to agents on the street?
Yes. Although they perform a public function in a public space, they retain their right to protection of personal data. Publishing recognizable images without their consent is only allowed in strictly defined exceptional cases, such as legitimate journalism, which was not the case here, according to the court.

Conclusion

This ruling draws a clear line: the right to police control stops in Belgium where the right to protect an officer's personal integrity and reputation begins. Manipulating images and launching false accusations through social media is not journalism or free speech, but a criminal act with real consequences.