The recently-introduced amendments to Georgia's defamation legislation mark a serious regression in the protection of freedom of expression. While authorities claim that the changes are intended to address the harms caused by false or damaging statements, ARTICLE 19 Europe considers the amendments to be yet another attempt by the Georgian Dream ruling party to stifle dissent, restrict independent journalism, and curtail the right to protest.
At a minimum, these amendments should be reversed, and Georgia must take urgent steps to align its legal framework with international human rights standards to safeguard civil society and the free exchange of ideas.
Key Findings
ARTICLE 19 Europe has conducted a detailed analysis of the recent amendments to the Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression, identifying a number of deeply concerning regressions. Several previously existing safeguards have been eliminated, including:
Reversal of the burden of proof, shifting responsibility from the plaintiff to the respondent;
Repeal of several public interest exceptions
Restrictions on alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, limiting opportunities to resolve defamation claims outside formal litigation.
These changes are likely to produce a significant chilling effect on freedom of expression and journalism in Georgia. They also fit into a broader pattern of democratic backsliding, reflected in other recent legislative and political developments.
ARTICLE 19 Europe has consistently advocated for the comprehensive reform of both civil and criminal defamation laws. Criminal sanctions for defamation are always unnecessary or disproportionate responses to reputational harm. In addition, within civil law, restrictions on free speech must be carefully designed to ensure they remain necessary, proportionate, and consistent with international human rights standards.
To protect democracy and uphold its international commitments, Georgia should urgently revisit these amendments and restore robust protections for free expression and public interest journalism.
This analysis has been developed as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) - a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries.