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.
Political Speech, Court Guarantees and Evidentiary Standards
Under Article 5, a statement made in the framework of political debates, by a member of Parliament, the supreme council of an autonomous republic or a sakrebulo in connection with the performance of duties, at pre-trial or court proceedings, before the Public Defender, or at the request of an authorized body, does not give rise to liability for defamation. Article 6 adds court guarantees: for defamation published in the media the respondent is the owner of the outlet; the subject matter cannot be a statement about an indefinite group or one where the plaintiff is not unambiguously identified; a state or administrative body cannot sue to protect its personal non-property rights. To protect the dignity of a deceased person, a person with a worthy interest of protection may apply to court, although a claim for property compensation for moral damage after death is inadmissible. The court takes measures to reconcile the parties and may set a term for reconciliation not exceeding 10 days. Article 7 requires any restriction to rest on irrefutable evidence, resolves every unresolved doubt against the restriction and in favour of the status of opinion, and places the burden of proof on the initiator of the restriction. A respondent's refusal to disclose a professional secret or a source cannot be the sole ground for a decision against them.
Defamation and Compensation for Damage
Articles 13 and 14 govern defamation claims: the plaintiff must submit the disputed statement, indicate what substantially false fact it contains about them, and justify why the statement is damaging to their name. Liability is imposed on the respondent if they fail to prove that the disputed statement does not contain a substantially false fact about the plaintiff. For public persons, liability is excluded where the respondent proves good faith: all necessary reasonable verification measures were taken before dissemination and the falsity of the fact was unknown to them. Article 15 grants a qualified privilege even where a statement contains a false fact: for instance, where the person took reasonable verification measures and carried out active measures to restore the damaged reputation, or where the statement protected the lawful interests of society and the protected good outweighs the harm. Under Article 17, the respondent may be obliged to publish a notice of the court decision in a form determined by the court, but it is inadmissible to force the respondent to apologize. Where the publication of a correction or refutation is insufficient, the respondent may, at the plaintiff's request, also be obliged to compensate property and non-property damage.
Frequently Asked Questions about Free Speech
Is an opinion fully protected?
Yes. Under Article 4 of the law, an opinion is protected by an absolute privilege, which means that no liability arises from expressing an opinion as such.
When does a call trigger liability?
Only where a person commits a deliberate act that creates a clear, direct and substantial danger of an unlawful result; the call alone is never enough.
Who is the respondent for defamation published in the media?
Under Article 6, in a dispute concerning defamation published by a journalist in the media, the respondent is the owner of the media outlet.
Can a court force the respondent to apologize?
No. Under Article 17 it is inadmissible to force a respondent to apologize; only publication of a notice of the decision and, where necessary, compensation of damage are possible.
How We Help on Legal.ge
If your statement has become the subject of a dispute or you need to defend free speech, the Legal.ge team will help you assess the situation, classify the evidence and prepare your court position, analysing whether the statement is opinion or fact and whether a qualified privilege applies.