The General Foundations of Freedom of Speech and Expression
Freedom of speech in Georgia is regulated by a dedicated law which, under Article 2, must be interpreted in accordance with the Constitution, Georgia's international obligations, the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Under Article 3, the state recognizes and protects freedom of speech and expression as inviolable and supreme human values. In exercising power, the people and the state are bound by these rights and freedoms as directly applicable law. Everyone enjoys freedom of expression except administrative bodies, which draws a clear boundary between the private and public spheres.
The Constituent Elements of Freedom of Expression
Article 3 of the law describes freedom of expression in detail. It includes the absolute freedom of opinion, freedom of political speech and debate, and the right to seek, receive, create, store, process and disseminate information and ideas of any kind. The law prohibits censorship and guarantees the editorial independence and pluralism of the media, the journalist's right to protect the confidentiality of sources and to make editorial decisions according to their own conscience. It further covers academic freedom of study, teaching and research, freedom of art, creation and invention, the use of any language and any script, charity, whistleblowing and the protection of whistleblowers, and freedom from coercion to express a view on belief, conscience, worldview or affiliation. The law does not reject other constitutional rights and guarantees not expressly mentioned here.
The Absolute Privilege of Opinion and the Qualified Privilege of Calls
Article 4 of the law distinguishes two levels of protection. An opinion is protected by an absolute privilege: no liability attaches to holding or expressing an opinion as such. A call, by contrast, enjoys a qualified privilege: a call triggers liability established by law only where a person commits a deliberate act that creates a clear, direct and substantial danger of an unlawful result. This means the mere fact of a call can never ground liability: intent and a real, substantial danger of an unlawful outcome are required, which preserves fair space for criticism, denunciation and public debate without exposing speakers to disproportionate claims.