{"id":100467,"date":"2025-10-12T10:47:00","date_gmt":"2025-10-12T09:47:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?p=100467"},"modified":"2025-10-12T10:54:38","modified_gmt":"2025-10-12T09:54:38","slug":"may-i-film-the-police-and-post-the-footage-online","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/mag-ik-de-politie-filmen-en-de-beelden-online-plaatsen\/","title":{"rendered":"May I film the police and post the footage online?"},"content":{"rendered":"

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 judgement<\/a> 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)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The facts: a police intervention and the online aftermath<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court's decision<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The correctional court found the defendants guilty of multiple crimes and convicted them on criminal and civil charges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Contempt of police:<\/strong> 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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Unlawful processing of personal data (GDPR):<\/strong> 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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Rebelliousness:<\/strong> The first defendant was also convicted of unruly conduct, as he deliberately disobeyed the officers' orders and was verbally aggressive and threatening.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Legal analysis and interpretation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    This ruling balances between two fundamental rights: the freedom of speech<\/a> and the right to privacy protection<\/a> and reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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<\/a> contempt occurs when a person insults a police officer in the performance of his duties through actions, words, gestures or threats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What this specifically means<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    This ruling has important practical implications for several parties:<\/p>\n\n\n\n