Unlawful statements on social media
Systematic accusations on Instagram, LinkedIn and X
On 27 February 2026 the provisional relief judge in Rotterdam imposed a prohibition and a rectification order on a person who systematically made accusations of criminal offences, threatened violence and shared private information about another person and their family via Instagram, LinkedIn and X. The judgment draws a clear line: crude abuse is permitted, unfounded accusations of criminal offences are not.
The claimant — a person with some degree of public profile — and the defendant had been engaged in an escalating online conflict since January 2025. The defendant repeatedly accused the claimant on social media of psychological abuse, mental violence, stalking and child abuse. She posted a photo of the claimant with the caption 'fucking children', put WhatsApp conversations with his ex-partner about their divorce online, published a photo of his minor children and threatened violence on several occasions. When the claimant's lawyer served notice to stop, she responded publicly that she would 'absolutely not' remove any messages — and instead posted fresh accusations.
The limit of free expression where accusations are unfounded
The court weighed the right to privacy and reputation (Article 8 ECHR) against freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR). Crude abuse — 'psychopath', 'imbecile', 'disgusting creep' — fell within freedom of expression. The court took into account that the claimant himself sought out the confrontation and addressed the defendant in a comparable tone.
But the line was drawn at four categories. Accusations of criminal offences without any factual basis: no conviction, no prosecution, not a single indication. Publications about the claimant's family life and children, including putting a photo of the children online. The sharing of information from the divorce proceedings — information that is by its nature private. And threats of violence on social media, where the court gave significant weight to the fact that the defendant did not know who her followers were or what they might do with it.
The defendant must remove dozens of specifically identified publications and post a rectification on Instagram, X and LinkedIn for 72 hours. The penalty payment: €500 per day, up to a maximum of €25,000. The contact ban and the imprisonment for debt (lijfsdwang) were refused. The costs of the proceedings were awarded in accordance with the standard scale of costs (liquidatietarief) (€2,431), not on the basis of the actual costs. The application to recuse the judge (wraking) — which caused a 49-day delay — did not, according to the court, amount to an abuse of procedural law, because the defendant did not yet have a lawyer at that point.
What does this mean for protection against unlawful publications online?
The line is clear: value judgments are protected, factual accusations of criminal offences without substantiation are not. It is notable that the court took the claimant's own conduct into account. A person who seeks out confrontation and belittles the other weakens their own position — although that does not make crude accusations any less unlawful.
The judgment also confirms that information from divorce proceedings does not belong on the internet, whatever the intent. And a practical lesson: the scope of the removal order — the court referred to specific pages in the exhibits — shows that it pays to build your file carefully from the outset.
Frequently asked questions
Can I use crude abuse on social media without consequences?
Crude abuse (swear words, value judgments) is protected as freedom of expression, including online. However: as soon as you make unfounded accusations of criminal offences, you lose that protection. The court accepts abuse where it is mutual and proportionate, but not where it is accompanied by false accusations without any basis.
What counts as an 'accusation of a criminal offence' for this judgment?
A statement such as 'he abuses children' or 'she steals money' is a factual assertion that implicitly alleges criminal conduct. If you want to publish something like that, you need strong facts. Without investigation, without prosecution, without any indication — it is not permitted. The same limit applies to private posts on closed profiles.
Can I argue against a penalty payment that no serious investigation was carried out into my allegations?
No. The court did not examine whether the accusations were true, but whether you made them without any basis. The burden is on you: if you want to put accusations out into the world, do not post them on social media but file a criminal complaint. For other channels the rule is: something in writing is easier to defend than unsubstantiated tweets.
ECLI:NL:RBROT:2026:2075, Rotterdam District Court, 27 February 2026.
Cited case law
District Courts: ECLI:NL:RBROT:2026:2075