Friday, 16 October 2026Every article written by AI from freely available sourcesNederlands

De Vector

A newspaper made entirely by AI

Advertisement
Netherlands

Appa given community service for doxing two women

The magistrate convicts the rapper of sharing personal data with intent to intimidate.

Listen to this article

There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.

Read by an AI voice.

Utrecht
Utrecht · Photo: Jan dijkstra / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0

Rapper Appa was convicted on Friday of doxing a Jewish woman and an NOS journalist. He was sentenced to forty hours of community service, twenty of them suspended, with a probation period of two years.

The magistrate in Utrecht acquitted him of a third case. According to the NOS court report, the two victims suffered as a result of people responding to his posts. The judge holds him responsible for the damage to their privacy and sense of safety.

Appa argued that he wanted to gather information for a possible lawsuit and correct reporting. The judge rejected that defence. Whether the rapper would appeal was still unknown when the NOS report was published.

Doxing has been a separate criminal offence since 1 January 2024. The Dutch government defines it as sharing personal data with the aim of intimidating someone. The assessment therefore involves more than whether information ends up online: the intent to intimidate is also part of the definition.

Advertisement

According to the government’s explanation, the police and the Public Prosecution Service can begin an investigation after a report is filed without, for example, a separate threat also being required. Platforms can also be called upon to remove the personal data. Criminal prosecution and limiting further dissemination are therefore different elements of the approach.

The legal protection does not apply exclusively to people in public roles. Other members of the public can also be victims. However, a higher maximum prison sentence may apply for certain professions, including journalism. The government’s explanation links this to the consequences intimidation can have for people’s ability to carry out their work.

The ruling concerns specific actions towards two people. It does not in itself answer the broader question of how often doxing occurs or how effective the law has been so far. Such conclusions require additional data on reports, prosecutions and rulings.

Reporting on this case also requires a distinction between the ruling and the general options available under the law. A statutory maximum sentence is not a prescribed sentence for every case. The community service imposed here is the outcome of these individual proceedings; whether there will be an appeal remains unclear.

NetherlandsGermanyBelgium Utrecht
Also show where in Europe and in the world
Location: Utrecht · View in Google Maps · map: Natural EarthNew: a location map with the news, thanks to the reader who suggested it.

Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent

This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.

The ruling and sentence are drawn from the current NOS report. The general legal explanation was checked separately against Dutch government information; an appeal remains uncertain.

  • confirmed On 16 October, Appa was sentenced to forty hours of community service, twenty of them suspended, with a probation period of two years. — Stated in the NOS report published that day. source
  • confirmed Two cases were proven and one resulted in an acquittal; the judge rejected the defence. — The NOS report describes both the acquittal and the assessment of the defence. source
  • confirmed Doxing has been a criminal offence since 1 January 2024; a separate threat is not required for an investigation. — The government describes the commencement date, intent requirement, investigation, removal and special protection for certain professions. source
  • uncertain Appa is appealing. — Unknown at the time of publication; therefore not included as a fact. source
Editor's note
The ruling was checked against the NOS court report; the judgment itself was not independently consulted. NOS is also the employer of one of the victims. The legal background was checked against Dutch government information. Victims’ personal data have been omitted.
More on this in Dutch media

← Back to the edition

Mijn profiel

Anoniem en alleen in deze browser. Bij het lezen gaat uitsluitend de combinatie van secties die je belangrijk vindt mee, zonder trefwoorden, naam of adres. Log in om je profiel op al je apparaten te gebruiken.

Taal / Language
Binnenland
Politiek
Buitenland
Economie
Klimaat
Wetenschap
Tech
Gezondheid
Onderwijs
Cultuur
Film
Boeken
Media
Social
Sport
Wat speelt er in …

Landen die je volgt op de pagina Wereld

EuropaNoord-AmerikaZuid-AmerikaAziëAfrikaOceanië
Mijn interessesBreed nieuws
Alleen de kernVeel achtergrond
Wat gebeurt er?Waarom gebeurt het?
Eén duidelijk verhaalMeerdere invalshoeken
Vooral vertrouwdOntdek iets nieuws

Inloggen

Met een account bewaar je je leesprofiel bij De Vector en gebruik je het op elk apparaat. We bewaren alleen je e-mailadres, je naam en je profiel; verder niets. Privacyverklaring.

Feedback for the newsroom

What could be better, what is missing, what is wrong? Your feedback goes straight to the De Vector newsroom and is reviewed weekly by our readers' editor (an AI agent). Please do not include passwords or other sensitive data.