On November 12, 2025, Estonia’s highest court delivered a ruling that has sparked a nationwide conversation about the boundaries of online behavior and the reach of existing laws. The Estonian Supreme Court decided that streaming disturbing content on social media platforms, such as TikTok, cannot be considered a disturbance of public order under current Estonian law. This landmark judgment has effectively drawn a line between the virtual world and the physical spaces traditionally governed by public order statutes, as reported by ERR News.
The case that prompted this ruling began in January 2024, when a video was livestreamed on TikTok. The participants in the video used profanity, mockery, and insults—behavior that one viewer found so objectionable that they reported it to the Estonian Police and Border Guard Board (PPA). The authorities responded by fining the individual responsible for the livestream €240 for disturbing public order, applying a section of the Law Enforcement Act intended to preserve peace in public spaces.
But as the case made its way through the courts, fundamental questions emerged: What exactly constitutes a "public place" in the digital age? Can a virtual gathering—accessible to potentially thousands—be treated the same as a physical one, like a rowdy demonstration in a city square or a disturbance in a park?
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the justices took a close look at the letter of the law. According to the Law Enforcement Act, a public place is defined as "an area, building, room, or public vehicle which is made available for use by an indeterminate group of people." The explanatory memorandum to the act, as cited in the court’s decision, gives concrete examples: public roads, parks, cemeteries, beaches, and commercial or service buildings. These are all tangible, physical spaces—places you can walk into, sit down in, or travel through.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated unequivocally that "only a physical space can constitute a public place." The court explained, "the described act did not constitute a disturbance of public order, since TikTok is not a public place within the meaning of the law." This interpretation, the court noted, is not arbitrary. The explanatory memorandum that accompanied the original passage of the law in 2011 made it clear that the concept of a public place was always intended to be tied to physically existing, concrete locations and objects—roads, parks, buildings, and the like.
Interestingly, the court acknowledged that social media was already in widespread use when the law was adopted. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and, more recently, TikTok, have become digital town squares where people from all walks of life can gather, share, and sometimes clash. Yet, as the court pointed out, "the legislature, i.e. the Riigikogu, did not consider it necessary to extend the definition of a public place to the online virtual realm, and has not done so since." In other words, the law has remained firmly rooted in the physical world, even as society has migrated many of its conversations and confrontations online.
The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the €240 fine and terminate the misdemeanor proceedings was not made lightly. The court recognized the reality that social media posts and livestreams can reach a vast audience, including people who have no direct relationship with the person posting. "Posts shared on social networks can reach a large number of people, including those with no direct connection to the poster," the court observed. Nevertheless, it drew a sharp distinction: "public exposure to a post cannot be conflated with the concept of a public place."
This distinction is more than just a matter of legal semantics. It has far-reaching implications for how Estonia—and potentially other countries with similar legal frameworks—approach the regulation of online speech and behavior. If legislators wish to equate social media environments with public spaces, the court held, "this must be explicitly stated in the legislation." In other words, it’s up to the Riigikogu, Estonia’s parliament, to decide whether the law should evolve to keep pace with technological and social change.
The ruling has generated a flurry of reactions from legal experts, lawmakers, and ordinary citizens alike. Some argue that the decision exposes a gap in the law that needs to be addressed. After all, in today’s world, the impact of a viral video can be just as disruptive—or even more so—than an incident in a city square. Others believe that the court struck the right balance, preserving important distinctions between the online and offline worlds and protecting freedom of expression in virtual spaces.
For now, the Supreme Court’s decision stands as a clear signal: under current law, Estonia draws a hard boundary between physical and digital public spaces. The court’s message to lawmakers was equally clear. If Estonia wishes to regulate online conduct as strictly as it does behavior in its parks, streets, and buses, then it must do so with new, carefully crafted legislation that leaves no room for ambiguity.
This case is likely to become a touchstone for future debates about the nature of public space and the responsibilities of individuals and authorities in the digital age. As more aspects of daily life move online, questions about the reach of traditional laws are bound to become more pressing. The Estonian Supreme Court has, for now, left the next move in the hands of the country’s legislators.
Whatever path Estonia chooses, this ruling has set a precedent that will be closely watched by legal scholars and policymakers far beyond the country’s borders. The challenge of balancing free expression, public order, and the realities of digital life is one that every modern society must grapple with. Estonia’s Supreme Court has made it clear: the law, as it stands, is anchored in the physical world. Whether it should be updated for the virtual one is a question for the future—and for the parliament to answer.
