Judge reprimands gossip vlogger for offensive remarks

You cannot simply say anything you want online: the judge ruled that a gossip vlogger had to remove and retract offensive remarks about the widow of André Hazes. The case (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:208) shows that freedom of speech has limits — certainly regarding insulting statements that serve solely for personal gain and not to highlight a wrongdoing. Below you can read what the judge decided and what this means for vloggers and entrepreneurs.

What was at stake in this case?

A vlogger with a popular YouTube account spreads gossip about Dutch celebrities, allegedly with the help of anonymous tipsters (“spies”). She has hundreds of thousands of subscribers. In one of her videos, she made statements about the private life of the Hazes family, including that the son had allegedly broken off contact with his mother.

The widow went to court and won: the statements were declared unlawful and the video had to be taken offline. She was also no longer allowed to be called “a cremated croquette”.

Gossip for personal gain is not protected

The judge emphasized that this concerned very personal matters that were disseminated for no other reason than personal gain — not to expose a societal injustice, but to satisfy the curiosity of the followers. It also counted that the vlogger:

• could not provide good evidence to substantiate her gossip;
• relied solely on two anonymous sources, the existence and reliability of which the judge could not verify.

Anyone spreading serious accusations must be able to substantiate them sufficiently. Anonymous, unverifiable sources are not sufficient for this.

“Cremated croquette” is unnecessarily offensive

The judge also considered the wording of the statements. Words such as “toxic,” “narcissistic,” “crazy,” and “manipulative” were unnecessarily offensive. The term “cremated croquette” was also clearly offensive and insulting. The fact that the vlogger had not coined that term herself was irrelevant.

The verdict: video offline and rectification

The judge ruled that the vlogger:

• had to remove the video;
• had to remove the term “cremated croquette” everywhere, also in combination with a photo;
• had to post a correction on Instagram as a 24-hour story — without comment, rebuttal, video, sound effects, or follow-up posts;
• had to post a 60-second correction on YouTube in the next broadcast.

Penalty payments made compliance enforceable.

What does this mean for vloggers and entrepreneurs?

The case shows that freedom of expression is not unlimited. In the case of online statements, the judge weighs the interests between that freedom and the right to protection of honor, reputation, and privacy. The more serious the accusation, the stronger the substantiation must be. Companies can also face this, for example regarding online statements about competitors or employees.

Frequently Asked Questions

Am I allowed to say anything online under freedom of speech?

No. Freedom of speech has limits. Unnecessarily offensive, insulting, or insufficiently substantiated statements can be unlawful.

When is an online statement unlawful?

The judge weighs freedom of expression against the right to protection of privacy and reputation. Factors include the seriousness of the accusation, the substantiation, the purpose, and the wording of the statement.

What can I do about offensive remarks about me or my company?

You can demand removal and rectification and possibly damages . The judge may impose penalty payments to enforce compliance.

Do the same rules apply to vloggers?

Yes. (Professional) vloggers, too, must respect the limits of freedom of expression and media law.

Questions about media law or unlawful statements?

MKB Juristen specializes in media law: from the protection of intellectual property and freedom of information to the limits of freedom of expression. Whether you are being addressed regarding a statement or are personally bothered by offensive remarks, we stand by you.

Schedule a no-obligation intake interview and discuss your situation.