Are you allowed to share a video of a public space incident on social media?

Online sharing of images showing antisocial or dangerous behavior in traffic is increasingly common. But can you simply publish such videos without violating the privacy or personality rights of the person depicted? According to a ruling by the Liege Court of Appeal on March 5, 2026, freedom of expression weighs particularly heavily in such cases. As long as the images are factually accurate, shared without bad faith and contribute to a social debate of general interest, such publication is generally legally permissible.

The facts and legal context

The trigger for this legal battle was an incident on Dec. 25, 2020. A father, Paul, was hiking with his family on a trail in the High Fens. A bicyclist, Jules, was approaching at a certain speed and during an overtaking maneuver hit Paul's five-year-old daughter with his knee, causing the child to fall down. Paul happened to be filming the walk with his smartphone at the time and captured the incident.

Shortly after the fact, Paul shared the video privately on WhatsApp and Instagram. Eventually, he gave an acquaintance permission to post the footage on Facebook as well. The video was tagged with the text “URGENT FAITES TOURNER CETTE VIDEO SVP !!!”. This led to massive media coverage with the footage being viewed and shared en masse. Due in part to a media alert, the cyclist reported to police. He was later criminally convicted for unintentional assault and battery and had to pay a symbolic compensation of one euro.

The cyclist then decided to go to civil court himself. He claimed damages of 4,500 euros from the father. He argued that the father had committed a fault (based on Article 1382 of the old Civil Code) by allowing the video to be widely distributed, which he claimed violated his personality rights.

Appeal court decision

The court of appeal in Liege considered the case. The court reformed the judgment of the first judge and ruled that the publication of the video on social media did fall under the protection of freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The court ruled that the sharing of this particular video served to expose the behavior of certain cyclists toward pedestrians in public spaces. Since the difficult cohabitation between these two groups of road users is a matter of general or public interest, the sharer of images enjoys broad protection. Because the father had accurately presented the facts, had not manipulated the video and he did not act out of bad faith or with intent to harm, the court ruled that there was no need to interfere with his freedom of expression. Consequently, the cyclist's claim for damages was declared unfounded.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This decision illustrates the delicate balancing act between, on the one hand freedom of speech (Article 10 ECHR) and on the other hand the right to respect for private life and the protection of reputation (Article 8 ECHR). According to established case law of the European Court of Human Rights, to justify an interference with freedom of expression, three cumulative conditions must be met: the interference must be provided for by law, serve a legitimate purpose and be necessary in a democratic society.

In this case, the concept of ‘social debate’ was decisive. The court emphasized, following the ECHR, that not only traditional journalists, but also bloggers and popular users of social media can exercise a ‘watchdog function’. When a publication contributes to a debate that concerns the public - such as public road safety and the sharing of public space - the court's margin of appreciation to curtail that expression is very limited.

Important for legal practice is the observation that a private citizen who allows factually correct images (without adding defamatory comments) to appear online is not simply moderating defamatory comments proactively. The absolute limit is malicious manipulation, slander or defamation.

What this specifically means

For citizens and victims of incidents:

Have you filmed an accident or antisocial behavior on the public road? Then, in principle, you may share it online to expose a social problem. However, you should be extremely careful. Limit yourself to the bare facts, do not add inflammatory or defamatory texts and do not manipulate the images. If you do, you risk civil or criminal liability for defamation.

For perpetrators or persons who are filmed unwanted:

If you are depicted recognizably in an incident in a public space, you cannot simply invoke your portrait right or privacy to have the images taken offline, especially if the incident is part of a broader social debate. Only when the disseminator of the images knowingly spreads untruths or uses the images purely to harass you personally without any social benefit, a claim for damages has a real chance of succeeding.

Frequently asked questions (faq)

Can I always post images of a traffic accident on social media?
No, this is not unlimited. Sharing images is allowed if it contributes to a public interest debate (such as traffic safety) and the images are factually accurate. However, you may not unnecessarily show the victim in a vulnerable position and you may not use the images for pure revenge or slander.

Can I claim damages if someone films me uninvited and puts it online?
It depends on the context. If you are filmed on the public road during an incident that is socially relevant, freedom of expression often outweighs your right to image. You will only stand a chance of compensation (via article 6.5 Civil Code) if the sharer acts wrongly, such as by lying, manipulating or engaging in a targeted smear campaign.

Conclusion

Sharing videos of incidents in public places falls under freedom of expression in Belgium, provided that the purpose is to fuel a legitimate social debate and there is no bad faith. Yet the line between a permissible publication and an actionable attack on honor and reputation sometimes remains razor thin.