Defendant Acid and his lawyer Walter Vansteenbrugge. — © Fred Debrock
Walter Vansteenbrugge, the lawyer of YouTuber Nathan Vandergunst alias Acid, repeated on Thursday evening in De Afspraak on VRT Canvas why he believes that his client should appear before the assizes instead of the criminal court.
As is known, Acid had to appear in court in Bruges on Thursday because he distributed a video in the aftermath of the Reuzegom trial in which he explicitly mentioned four Reuzegommers by name. One of the four, a former president of the student club, sued him because Acid had wrongly mentioned him in the video.
The hearing took place in the criminal court, and that is not possible, according to Acid’s lawyer Walter Vansteenbrugge. The counselor is of the opinion that his client has only exercised his right to freedom of expression. Moreover, he said in court and repeated in the studio of The Appointment: “If there is any crime, it is a printing crime, and these are reserved for the court of assizes.”
If the case were to go to trial, it would not be up to the appeal judge but up to a twelve-member jury to decide whether Acid is guilty of the charges – defamation, defamation and electronic harassment – that are now being charged against him. That might not suit Vandergunst badly, as he seems to have a large part of public opinion behind him. But above all, hardly any press crimes are tried in our country, which means that the case may remain without consequences. There is legal uncertainty as to whether a YouTube video can even qualify as a press offense.
“Political and press crimes must be brought before the court of assizes: that is a foundation of our democracy. And what’s wrong with submitting the case to the court of assizes? It can be finished in one day,” Vansteenbrugge suggested in The Appointment.
The lawyer primarily hopes that Acid will be fully acquitted. “The law is very clear: this is about freedom of expression. It is written into the constitution. Opinions are free, except in highly exceptional circumstances: when their restriction would be necessary for democracy. That is not the case in this case, because my client does not endanger any other freedoms.”
The court will rule on the case on February 22.