“Freedom of expression has a real problem in Belgium,” a media founder has said after a journalism watchdog punished his outlet for publishing the full transcript of a speech by US Vice President JD Vance without additional commentary.
The remarks were made by Etienne Dujardin, director and founder of Belgian outlet 21News, after the country’s Council for Journalistic Ethics (CDJ) upheld a complaint against the publication over an article reproducing Vance’s address at the 2025 Munich Security Conference. In a post on social media, Dujardin described the ruling as “astounding”, writing that the outlet had simply relayed the speech “talking about freedom of expression in Munich”.
The speech was published the day after Vance initially delivered it last year without commentary.
The CDJ ruled on February 18th that the article, which consisted of the full transcript of Vance’s speech, breached ethical standards governing the “social responsibility” of media organisations.
According to a notice published by 21News outlining the decision, the council concluded that the outlet had failed to use the time available between the delivery of the speech and its publication to verify the claims made in it, provide context, or correct alleged inaccuracies.
The decision stated that by relaying the remarks “as-is”, the outlet allowed the speaker to deploy his “talking points and communication without distance or reaction”. It added that parts of the public could therefore have perceived several claims in the speech “as factual and legitimate”, despite being “contradicted by facts or being racist in nature”.
The council further argued that this created a risk of turning the public “against the functioning of European democracies” or inciting “racism, discrimination, hatred, or violence toward migrants”.
The complaint that triggered the ruling was submitted by anonymous complainants who argued that publishing the transcript constituted a “clear and distinct breach of the cordon sanitaire”, a media practice in parts of Belgium that limits exposure given to individuals or movements deemed part of the far-right.
In their submission, the complainants stated that reproducing the speech word for word effectively provided a “live platform for the far-right within a print media outlet”.
They argued that by presenting the remarks without contextualisation or critical analysis, the article risked confusing fact and opinion and could lead readers to view the vice president’s statements as authoritative.
The complainants also cited a section of Vance’s speech referring to an asylum seeker driving into a crowd, arguing that the absence of contextual information could lead readers to assume the remarks were factual.
In addition, they claimed that several statements in the speech contained “exaggerated, stereotyped, stigmatizing remarks that incite discrimination”, and said the publication of the full transcript normalised views they described as extremist.
The complainants said the application of the media cordon sanitaire in the case was justified because it prevented “speaking time for the far-right”, limited the spread of its ideas, and avoided the reuse of such coverage for political purposes.
Responding to the complaint, 21News criticised the decision to accept anonymous submissions, expressing “astonishment” that the council had allowed complainants to remain unidentified.
The outlet argued that anonymity made it difficult to understand the motivations behind the complaint or determine whether it was linked to a “personal agenda”.
On the substance of the case, the publication rejected the claim that reproducing the speech without commentary breached journalistic ethics.
It said the article clearly identified the text as the speech of the Vice President of the United States and therefore did not risk confusing fact with opinion.
The outlet also argued that reporting on the speech was justified given the position of the speaker and the prominence of the event, noting that the address had been widely discussed across international media and on social networks.
According to 21News, other publications had also reproduced the speech in full, including French outlets Le Figaro and Les Echos.
The outlet stated that refusing to relay the speech of the US vice president because some objected to its content would amount to censorship of what it described as a major news document.
It added that publishing a speech did not imply endorsement of its contents and said it had previously published full texts of other significant addresses, including a speech by Pope Leo XIV.
Dujardin, responding to the ruling publicly, said the episode illustrated what he described as a wider problem for freedom of expression in Belgium.
“Can we as a media outlet simply relay the speech by JD Vance talking about freedom of expression in Munich?” he wrote.
“For some, no… and that’s astounding.”