{"id":100847,"date":"2025-11-03T11:10:33","date_gmt":"2025-11-03T10:10:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?p=100847"},"modified":"2025-12-22T22:27:03","modified_gmt":"2025-12-22T21:27:03","slug":"is-defamation-via-a-youtube-video-a-printing-press-crime","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/is-laster-via-een-youtube-video-een-drukpersmisdrijf\/","title":{"rendered":"Is defamation via a YouTube video a printing press crime?"},"content":{"rendered":"

A remarkable judgement<\/a> by the correctional court Ghent of 3 November 2025, has intensified the debate on the limits of free speech<\/a> and the definition of \u201cpress crimes\u201d in the digital age. In a case that revolved around online defamation<\/a> and stalking, the court ruled that a defamatory YouTube video may be a \u2018printing press crime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This interpretation has far-reaching implications. It means that such a case must be heard not by an ordinary correctional judge but by a people's jury in the assize court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The facts: from online criticism to stalking<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The case has its origins in a heated online debate. A university employee (hereafter \u2018BP\u2019) anonymously managed the Twitter account \u201cSchild & Vrienden,\u201d which criticized the radical right-wing movement \u201cShild en Vrienden. After BP's identity was revealed (\u201ddoxxed\u2018), he became the target of a wave of online hatred and threats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two specific defendants were on trial:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Defendant 1 (BK1):<\/strong> The leader of \u201cSchild en Vrienden\u201d He published a YouTube video accusing BP of abusing his position at the university to leak private data (such as bank details and addresses) of S&V members. This was qualified as defamation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Defendant 2 (BK2):<\/strong> A sympathizer of the movement. He ordered incontinence materials (adult diapers) over the Internet and had them delivered to BP's private address, using false names such as \u201cMr. Schuld en Vrienden.\u201d This qualified as stalking, IT forgery<\/a> and using a false name.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

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

    The court delivered a split verdict on the two defendants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Defendant 2: Stalking is not a joke<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The court briskly dismissed BK2\u201cs defense that sending the diapers was a \u201dstudent prank.\" The judge ruled that the act did constitute stalking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It was a deliberate action to translate the online harassment into the physical world and the privacy of the victim's home. The implied message - \u201cwe know where you live\u201d and that he would \u201cshit his pants\u201d with fear - severely disturbed the victim's peace of mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Even a single act can constitute stalking, according to the court, if it has \u201cunremitting or recurring consequences.\u201d BK2 was found guilty of stalking, IT forgery and false naming and sentenced to 70 hours of community service.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Defendant 1: Slander on YouTube is a press crime<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The ruling on BK1 (the YouTube video) is legally the most remarkable. The court declared itself incompetent to rule on this defamation complaint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The reasoning: the defamatory allegations were made through a public video, which the court said amounts to a printing press crime. According to article 150 of the Belgian Constitution<\/a> press crimes (and political crimes) must be judged by the assize court, which works with a people's jury.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Legal analysis and interpretation: a modern take on the Constitution<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    This decision is noteworthy because the court deliberately departed from the traditional, restrictive interpretation of the Court of Cassation, which holds that a printing press crime requires a written element (see, e.g. Cass. 6 December 2023<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Ghent judge opted for an \u201cevolutionary interpretation\u201d based on three pillars:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. The purpose of the Constitution (Ratio Legis).<\/strong> Constitutionalists in 1831 wanted to protect freedom of speech from government (represented by professional judges). The jury was seen as the ultimate guarantor of that freedom. The medium (then the \u2018printing press\u2019) was secondary to the goal (protection of public opinion).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. Technological neutrality<\/strong> The court states that it is absurd to make the legal protection depend on the medium. It would lead to bizarre situations: a defamatory video is not a press crime, but the same video with (automatically generated) subtitles is. The judge ruled that modern media such as YouTube have taken over the role of the classic printing press as \u201cmass communication.\u201d.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. Violation of the European Convention (ECHR).<\/strong> This is the strongest argument. Treating an opinion differently based on its form (written text vs. audiovisual video) is discrimination that violates the principle of equality. It violates Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the ECHR<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      The court concluded that to avoid discrimination, any public expression through a mass medium (written, audio or video) that constitutes a crime should be treated as a press crime. The case against BK1 was therefore referred to the public prosecutor to bring (possibly) before the assize court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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