Criminal Limits on Freedom of Expression
Freedom of expression is a fundamental value, but the legislator limits it where expression creates a real danger to the rights of others. The Criminal Code establishes three provisions in this direction: article 151 on threats, article 157 on the violation of private-life information or personal data, and article 256 on works propagandising a cult of violence or cruelty. Charges built on these provisions bring journalists, bloggers and activists before the court. This page explains each article, the attached sanctions and the available defence.
Threat as a Criminal Offence
Article 151 of the Criminal Code criminalises a threat to kill, to damage health or to destroy property where the person threatened has developed a well-founded fear that the threat will be carried out. Decisive here is not the wording alone but the existence of a real, substantiated fear. Under the first part, the offender is punished by a fine or community service for a term of one hundred twenty to one hundred eighty hours, or corrective labour for up to one year, or house arrest for a term of six months to two years, or imprisonment for up to one year, with or without restriction of weapon-related rights.
The act becomes more serious when committed by a group, more than once, with prior knowledge against a pregnant woman, a helpless person, a person with disability or a minor, or against a family member: the community service range rises to one hundred seventy–two hundred hours and the ceiling of imprisonment extends to three years. In practice it is precisely this boundary that is contested: a single harsh phrase is not yet a threat unless a well-founded fear is established.
Violation of Private-Life Information and Personal Data
Article 157 imposes liability for the unlawful obtaining, storage, use, dissemination or otherwise making accessible of private-life information or personal data that has caused significant harm. The second part is of particular importance to media work: use or dissemination through a work, the internet — including social networks — broadcasting or another public appearance, where significant harm has been caused, is punished by a fine or corrective labour for up to two years or imprisonment for up to four years. Where the act is committed for gain or more than once, the punishment is a fine or imprisonment for up to five years; and a person who was obliged to protect such information by virtue of official position or professional activity, or who used an official position to commit the act, faces imprisonment from four to seven years, with deprivation of the right to hold office or carry on an activity for up to three years or without it.
The law also contains an important limitation: for obtaining or storing information under the first part, no criminal liability attaches to a person who handed that information over to investigative bodies and in this way supplied information about another committed or anticipated crime. Liability of legal persons is likewise provided — a fine, deprivation of the right to carry on an activity, or liquidation together with a fine. Where a matter of public interest is at stake, this article frequently collides with journalistic investigation, and the qualification of harm, unlawfulness and publicness becomes decisive.
Propaganda of a Cult of Violence or Cruelty
Article 256 establishes liability for producing, distributing, showing or storing for the purpose of distribution or showing a film, video film or other work that propagandises a cult of violence or cruelty. The sanction here is also strict: a fine, corrective labour for up to two years, house arrest for a term of six months to two years, or imprisonment for up to one year. Disputes here often turn on the boundary between a creative work and propaganda, requiring separate expert assessment.
Defence Strategy When Facing Restriction Charges
The first step is precise qualification: criticism or a value judgement is not yet a threat absent well-founded fear; reporting a public figure's life is not automatically private-life information; and a work of art is not automatically propaganda of violence. The second stage is the scrutiny of evidence: who spoke, when, in what context, and whether it produced fear or significant harm. Finally, the boundaries of coverage justified by public interest are assessed. The methodology for assessing harm, procedural time limits and other details are governed by other provisions of the Code.
Frequently Asked Questions
When does a statement count as a threat?
When a promise to kill, damage health or destroy property is accompanied by a well-founded fear on the part of the addressee. An insulting or harsh phrase without such fear is not qualified under this article.
What is the risk of disseminating private information?
Where significant harm is caused, liability ranges from a fine to imprisonment; use of social networks or broadcasting raises the ceiling to four years, and gain, repetition or abuse of official position aggravates the punishment further, up to seven years of imprisonment.
Does article 256 apply to artistic films?
The article restricts only works that propagandise a cult of violence or cruelty. Artistic character and propagandistic character are not the same, and the boundary is assessed separately in each concrete case.
Can cooperation with the investigation be a defence?
The law directly addresses the case where obtained or stored private information is handed to investigative bodies and information about another committed or anticipated crime is supplied in this way — such a person bears no liability under the first part.
How We Help on Legal.ge
The advocates of Legal.ge support you in any case connected with freedom of expression: verifying the qualification of the charges, building your position, commissioning expert assessments and defending you in court. We will assess your episode through the prism of articles 151, 157 and 256 and give you a realistic view of the outcome. Contact us — your word deserves protection. Legal.ge.