Joris DeeneAnyone who posts a mocking video of a police officer on social media and writes insulting comments beneath it may be committing a crime. But before which court will that person appear? On June 12, 2026, the Court of Appeal in Mons ruled that such a publication, classified as harassment, constitutes a printing press crime for which only the Assize Court has jurisdiction. Unlike the court in first instance, which had convicted the defendant, the court of appeal declared itself without jurisdiction and overturned the verdict. This is a remarkable outcome, which sharply highlights the application of a nineteenth-century constitutional provision to modern social media.
The facts
In November 2023, a citizen called the police in a Hainaut district to report that a Hamas flag was hanging on the facade of a house. Upon arriving at the scene, the officers found only a Palestinian flag and a sign bearing the words “Palestine libre.” There was no glorification of Hamas whatsoever. An inspector left a message via the building’s intercom asking that the flag be removed to avoid disturbing public order.
In late January 2024, the building’s owner—the resident’s father—posted that intercom message on his TikTok account. The video was framed with a “Free Palestine” logo and a smiling emoji with a sweat drop. The man added written comments in which he called the inspector “stupid” and mocked his stutter. The post went viral: by early February 2024, it had 555 likes, 204 comments, and 134 shares, and had been viewed over 43,000 times.
The inspector filed a complaint. The case was initially prosecuted as defamation under Article 276 of the Penal Code, but was reclassified by the Court of First Instance of Hainaut, Mons Division, as harassment under Art. 442bis of the Penal Code. At the first instance, the defendant was ordered to pay a fine and compensation to the inspector. Both the defendant and the public prosecutor’s office filed appeals.
The decision
The Court of Appeal considered a preliminary question of jurisdiction: do the facts constitute a printing press crime, which pursuant to Article 150 of the Constitution falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of assizes?
The court examined the four cumulative conditions for the offense of defamation in the press. First, a criminal offense under general law: the harassment via video and the insulting comments qualify as such. Second, the expression of a potentially criminal opinion or view. The court ruled that, through his publication, the defendant sought to criticize the actions of the police and thereby participated in a debate of public interest regarding the functioning of the police. The fact that the opinion was brief or lacked nuance does not detract from this: Article 150 of the Constitution does not make the jury’s authority contingent on the social relevance or the extent of the statement’s impact.
Third, the requirement of a written document or a similar procedure. The court based its decision here on established Court of Cassation case law dating back to the ruling of March 6, 2012, in which the Court ruled that digital distribution is a process equivalent to the printed press. Written statements on social media are thus treated as equivalent to printed text. The court acknowledged that purely oral or audiovisual expressions do not constitute a printing press crime, but ruled that the publication in question must be considered as a whole. That publication consisted not only of the video, but also, inseparably, of the written elements: the phrase “free Palestine,” the emoji, and, above all, the written comments that the defendant added to the post over time.
Fourth, the disclosure. By posting on a publicly accessible TikTok account, the defendant had undeniably made his statement public, as evidenced by the number of views and comments.
Since the facts constituted an inseparable whole of written and audiovisual communication, the court ruled that they could not be separated. It based this conclusion on the Court of Cassation ruling of March 26, 2025: The connection between crimes of different types gives the highest court jurisdiction over the entire case. In this case, that is the Court of Assizes. The Court of Appeal subsequently declared that it lacked jurisdiction, both in criminal and civil matters.
Legal analysis and interpretation
A correct rule of connectivity, applied following a questionable classification
The reasoning regarding connexity itself is legally sound. In its ruling of March 26, 2025, the Court of Cassation confirmed that the connection between two offenses of different nature results in the highest court having jurisdiction over the entire matter, and that this jurisdiction is a matter of public order, so that the parties cannot deviate from it. That ruling, incidentally, concerned an entirely different matter—namely, administrative fines relating to hunting and waste—with a dispute over the division of jurisdiction between the police court and the criminal court. The Court of Appeals correctly applies the principle.
The issue isn’t with that final step, but with the preceding ruling on admissibility: the written harassment on TikTok is classified as a printing press crime. That is precisely where the ruling conflicts with recent Court of Cassation precedent. In the doxing case we previously reported on in Is doxing a printing press crime?, the Court of Cassation ruled on June 4, 2025, that an online publication must be analyzed in parts. Mere facts do not express an opinion and cannot constitute a printing press crime. Furthermore, even negatively charged text that in itself expresses an opinion does not, in the context of harassment, cross the threshold to constitute a press offense, but rather functions as an instrument of harassment. It follows that the ordinary criminal court retains jurisdiction.
Applied to this case, that approach could have led to a different outcome. The mocking comments about the inspector were at least as much a means of disturbing that person’s peace as they were a contribution to a public debate. The Court of Appeal, however, chose to give priority to the opinion-forming aspect and referred the entire case to the Assize Court.
The recurring challenge: text, images, and the hybrid nature of social media
Since the Court of Cassation ruling of March 6, 2012, it has been established that written statements on the Internet can constitute a printing press crime. It has also been established since the ruling of October 29, 2013 Purely oral or audiovisual expressions cannot be classified as such, because they are not written texts. A publication that combines video and written text falls exactly between the two categories.
This tension is not a peripheral issue. It lies at the root of a divergence in case law. On November 3, 2025, the Ghent Criminal Court ruled in the case we discussed in Is defamation via a YouTube video a printing press crime?, that the distinction between text and images is arbitrary and that an audiovisual expression can also constitute a press offense. In doing so, that court explicitly departed from the case law of the Court of Cassation. The Court of Appeal in Mons effectively aligns with this broad interpretation, albeit via the detour of written comments and connexity. The result is identical: an online post with an audiovisual core ends up before the Assize Court.
A constitutional provision from 1831 and the risk of de facto impunity
Article 150 of the Constitution was written to protect the press from overly hasty criminal prosecution, with the jury trial serving as a safeguard. However, due to the complexity and cost of jury trials, printing press crimes are in practice almost never brought before a jury. Anyone who classifies online harassment under that heading thus shifts the case to a procedure that is rarely pursued, with de facto impunity as the likely result. The fact that a provision intended as a shield for freedom of the press functions as an escape route for cyberharassment fuels the debate over a revision of Article 150 of the Constitution, a debate that has been ongoing for some time.
Specifically, what does this mean?
For those who criticize government actions online. Anyone who criticizes a police intervention or other government action on social media generally enjoys the procedural protections afforded by press freedom laws, even in the case of brief or less nuanced statements. The flip side is that this classification depends heavily on the specific form of the publication and on whether the statement is primarily opinion-based or defamatory in nature. Anyone invoking a debate of public interest would be well advised to be able to substantiate that claim substantively as well.
For victims of online harassment and cyberbullying. If the conduct is classified as a printing press crime, the case is transferred to the court of assizes, with a real risk of de facto impunity. It is therefore advisable, when classifying the offense, to emphasize the harassing nature of the conduct and to point to the Court of Cassation’s line of case law, which treats cyberharassment as a criminal offense. Furthermore, caution is warranted when considering the merits of the case: as we explained in Doxing and stalking: when does the dissemination of personal data online effectively lead to a conviction?, a criminal case for harassment requires that the defendant himself acted repeatedly or continuously, and that the nuisance results directly from his conduct and not merely from the independent reactions of third parties. It is advisable to compile a detailed case file with timestamps and saved screenshots.
For parties to ongoing criminal cases. The question of jurisdiction is a matter of public order and may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, including for the first time on appeal. An incorrect assessment of jurisdiction can nullify an entire judgment, resulting in a loss of time and legal costs. A thorough analysis of the conditions of the printing press crime at the outset of the case is therefore by no means a luxury.
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Is an offensive post on social media always a printing press crime?
No. A written, opinion-based statement on social media may constitute a printing press crime, but only if all conditions are met: a general-law offense, the expression of an opinion, a written work or similar medium, and publication. Purely oral or audiovisual statements are excluded under the Court of Cassation’s case law, and in cases of online harassment, the Court of Cassation holds that the criminal court retains jurisdiction.
Why does the assize court has jurisdiction over a printing press crime?
Article 150 of the Constitution assigns printing press crimes to the Assize Court, with the sole exception of printing press crimes motivated by racism or xenophobia. This provision dates back to 1831 and was intended to protect freedom of the press against overly hasty prosecutions. However, due to the complexity and cost of criminal court proceedings, printing press crimes are rarely prosecuted in practice.
What happens after a court rules that it lacks jurisdiction?
In principle, the case then goes to the court of assizes, the only court with jurisdiction to hear cases involving printing press crimes. Because assize proceedings are slow and costly, in practice this often results in the case not being pursued further under criminal law.
Conclusion
In this ruling, the Mons Court of Appeal declares that it lacks jurisdiction to rule on a mocking TikTok video containing offensive comments about a police officer, because the video as a whole is classified as a printing press crime that falls under the jurisdiction of the Assize Court. The reasoning regarding connexity is legally sound, but the prior classification of written cyberharassment as a printing press crime is at odds with the recent Court of Cassation precedent that keeps online harassment within the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The ruling illustrates the ongoing division in case law regarding the application of Article 150 of the Constitution to social media, as well as the risk of de facto impunity for online statements.
Dutch 
English