Changes to Defamation Laws Fuel Free Speech Concerns
The Georgian Dream parliament is amending the laws regarding defamation, in a move that critics say is a further blow to freedom of expression and the independent media.
The amendments to the Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression are fast-tracked this week before the one-party legislature concludes its spring session on June 27.
The amendments redefine defamation and shift the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the respondent, or a person accused of making the allegedly defamatory statement, who will now have to be the one to justify why a statement was not defamatory. The amendments also eliminate nearly all forms of qualified privilege that currently shield defendants in such cases.
The proposed changes “represent a continued, deliberate attack on freedom of expression, establish a legal framework that effectively dismantles the media, forces journalists into self-censorship, and ultimately buries critical public discourse,” the Media Advocacy Coalition, a watchdog group, said in a June 24 statement.
Defamation is one of the grounds on which speech and expression can be regulated.
The bill redefines defamation as “a statement containing a substantially false fact and one that damages a person’s reputation,” omitting the current clause’s reference that such a statement must “inflict harm” to be considered defamatory.
Individuals, whether private citizens or public figures, who believe they have been defamed can file a complaint with the court and cite the specific statement that they believe damaged their reputation. Unlike current law, however, the proposed amendments require the respondent, not the plaintiff, to prove that the statement was not defamatory. If the court deems the respondent’s defense insufficient, the respondent will be held liable.
The bill also removes a safeguard that currently prevents courts from ruling against a respondent solely for refusing to disclose a professional secret or source. This change has drawn criticism from media groups who claim it endangers investigative journalism.
“The abolition of the right to protect sources effectively means the end of investigative journalism,” the Media Advocacy Coalition warned, adding that “it would make reporting on matters of significant public interest impossible.”
Another major change is the removal of the entire article outlining “qualified privilege” — the five key conditions under which a person can currently avoid liability for defamation. These conditions include situations when a person:
- Took reasonable steps to verify facts, yet still failed to avoid mistake, and then made efforts to restore the reputation of the defamed person;
- acted to protect legitimate interests of society that outweigh the harm caused;
- made a statement with the plaintiff’s consent;
- responded proportionally to an earlier statement made by the plaintiff against them;
- provided a fair and accurate report on matters of public interest.
The new law would eliminate the entire article except for the first ground, which is an honest mistake in cases involving public figures: respondents would only be exempt from liability if they can prove that they took all reasonable steps to verify the statement and were unaware that it was false.
Under current law, correcting or denying a defamatory statement may not be enough to compensate for the damage caused, and additional financial or moral compensation may be ordered. The new bill retains this provision but leaves it to the court, upon the plaintiff’s request, to decide whether the original remedy was sufficient.
The bill further expands the grounds for limiting speech. While “direct insult” is already recognized, the amendment introduces the vague concept of “insult in public spaces.” Though not clearly defined, recent court practices suggest it may include social media posts. Dozens of citizens have already been fined for allegedly “insulting” GD officials on Facebook.
The bill also reduces the conciliation period in court proceedings regarding defamation from up to a month to a period of ten days.
The initiators of the changes are the GD MPs: Davit Matikashvili, Rati Ionatamishvili, Archil Gorduladze, and Irakli Shatakishvili.
GD Parliament has passed the amendments in the first reading on June 25. GD MP Davit Matikashvili told the plenary session that the amended law would have a 100-day retroactive effect, meaning it would apply to posts made up to 100 days before the law is enacted.
Also Read:
- 24/06/2025 – GD to Restrict Media Coverage in Courts, Double Judges’ Salaries
- 23/01/2025 – CSOs Condemn Repressive Use of Fines Against Protesters in Georgia