SJC: Amendments to Broadcasting Law Severely Harm the Freedom of Expression

The local NGO, the “Social Justice Centre” (SJC), assesses the new amendments to the “Broadcasting Law” and concludes that the transfer of more powers to the Georgian National Communications Commission risks restricting freedom of expression, interfering with the freedom of critical media and punishing them.

On October 19, the Georgian Parliament adopted controversial amendments to the Broadcasting Law that will allow appeals against decisions by self-regulatory bodies on the broadcasting of programmes and advertisements allegedly containing incitement to hatred and terrorism. The new amendments “significantly increase the scope of the regulatory commission’s discretionary powers”, the SJC said.

Legal Details

The previous version of the Broadcasting Law stipulated that the violation of the ban on broadcasting programmes and advertisements containing hate speech and incitement to terrorism could only be dealt with by the broadcaster’s self-regulation mechanism. Moreover, the decisions of the self-regulatory mechanism could not be appealed to a court, a commission or any other administrative body.

The amendments change this by making it possible to appeal against the decisions of the self-regulatory bodies, thereby significantly strengthening the rights of the National Communications Commission.

The law also changes the regulation of “obscene” content, the control of which falls directly within the authority of the Commission rather than the media self-regulation bodies. 

Importantly, “the assessment of correctness of decisions made by the self-regulatory bodies comes under the authority of the national commission,” notes the statement whereas previously it was exclusively assigned to the self-regulation mechanism.”

Thus, according to the amended legislation, the assessment of the legitimacy of the decisions of a broadcaster’s self-regulatory body regarding the content of hate speech, incitement to terrorism and obscenity has been defined as the authority of the Commission. Therefore, in light of the amendments to the law, “the regulatory commission will be able to control the media more easily and use the sanction mechanism in specific cases”.

Council of Europe Critical Analysis

Moreover, SJC notes that the General Directorate of Human Rights and Rule of Law of the Council of Europe presented a critical analysis of the existing law before the amendments to the Law were initiated. The analysis stated that “a number of definitions of the law on broadcasting do not comply with the standards of the European Union and the Council of Europe.” Also, as SJC points, “some provisions allegedly violate the freedom of expression provided for in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.” 

Independence of Georgian National Communications Commission

As the Georgian National Communications Commission is given more rights, the question of its independence is at the center of attention. According to the criteria of EU Directive 2010/13/EU and the standards of the European Council on audiovisual and media services, the law must ensure the independence of the regulatory body so that political processes cannot influence its decisions.

The method of selecting the members of the Commission, as provided for in the law, is not transparent. Moreover, when the majority of parliamentary seats are held by the ruling party, all members of the Commission are nominated and selected by the ruling majority, which calls into question the independence of the body from the ruling party, the watchdog said.

Problem of Defining “Hate Speech” and “Obscenity”

Although Directive 2010/13/EU considers it appropriate to combat hate speech through co-regulation or legislative regulation, a clear definition of the content of hate speech is important to avoid the risks of political pressure, notes the SJC. The watchdog stresses that “according to the Council of Europe, based on the interviews conducted for the preparation of expert opinions, the term “hate speech” is widely used in Georgia to denote critical or offensive comments.”

In addition, it is stressed, that the International Committee against Racial Discrimination (OHCHR), the UN Human Rights Committee and ECRI note that the predictability of the law’s formulation is essential to prevent it from being used as a repressive measure to stifle legitimate political criticism

Typically the critical hate speech refers to the characteristics of the vulnerable groups or of someone’s personal features. Otherwise, “any statement that might be offensive, shocking or disturbing to the government or any group of the society, must not be considered as hate speech.” According to the European Court of Human Right, critical comments and controversial statements are not hate speech. 

Defining and implementing “obscenity” is also problematic. According to the Council of Europe, “obscene programs should not be banned, but only allowed to be shown, when children will probably not see them.” Therefore, “new amendments, which allow the regulatory commission to regulate “the coverage of obscene programs and ads” is problematic,” – notes the statement. 

Conclusion

SJC concludes that the amendments to the Broadcasting Law adopted on October 19, which specifically expand the scope of the National Commission’s authority to intervene in the content of broadcasters’ programs, increase the threat of control and censorship on media organizations in Georgia. The organization expresses concern that the Georgian Parliament adopted the problematic changes in the Broadcasting Law so hastily that it did not even finish the process of consultation with the broadcasting society. 

Clause 7 of the 12-point recommendations of the European Commission calls on the Georgian authorities to ensure a free, professional, pluralistic and independent media environment. The aforementioned amendments to the Law on Broadcasting, together with the hastily implemented amendments to the Law on “Assemblies and Manifestations” , which increase the powers of the police during assemblies, will severely limit the democratic and pluralistic environment in the country, says the watchdog. 

SJC concludes that the amendments “are inconsistent with the legal standards recognized by the Constitution of Georgia and international law regarding freedom of expression, as well as with the national interests and the spirit of fulfilling the 12 recommendations of the European Commission.” 

The conclusion states that the adoption of legislative changes that “severely undermine the freedom of expression and assembly” just weeks before the European Union’s decision on granting candidate status is alarming.

Earlier, the international free media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF), has also criticized the controversial amendments, calling on the Georgian Parliament “to repeal the law and open consultations.”

Also Read:

• 20/10/2023 – Parliament Adopts Controversial Amendments to Broadcasting Law
• 04/07/2023 – Parliament Adopts Amendments to Georgian Broadcasting Law
• 23/12/2022 – Parliament Adopts Amendments to the Law on Broadcasting

This post is also available in: ქართული (Georgian) Русский (Russian)