About this service
The central sanctioning stamp of media law within freedom-of-expression legislation is the defamation regime — and it is precisely there that the main source of journalistic risk lies. The Law of Georgia on Freedom of Speech and Expression builds this field on several supports: the absolute protection of professional secrecy and its source, the differing standards of defamation of private and public figures, the boundaries of liability and the procedure for compensating harm. This page reads those norms from a media-compliance standpoint: what an editorial office must know so that published material does not become the subject of a claim, and what arguments remain in its hands if a claim is brought nonetheless.
The absolute protection of the source of information
Article 11 of the law protects the source of professional secrecy with an absolute privilege: no one is entitled to demand its disclosure, and in court proceedings concerning restriction of freedom of speech a respondent may not be burdened with the obligation to disclose the source of confidential information. This guarantee is the foundation of journalism — without source protection, investigative journalism is impossible.
The boundaries of the privilege are likewise prescribed in detail: disclosure of confidential information is impermissible even with the consent of its holder, or in cases provided by law, without a justified court decision. The court is authorised to issue an order on securing evidence only in connection with the disclosure of that part whose necessity of disclosure has been proven, and information received through disclosure may be used only for the purpose for which it was disclosed.
Defamation of a private person
Article 13 of the law constructs the defamation claim of a private person. A claimant who considers himself or herself the addressee of defamation must submit to the court the statement he or she regards as defamatory, indicate in the claim what substantially false fact about him or her the statement contains, and substantiate why that statement is injurious to his or her reputation. This structure of the claim matters to the media as well: it shows exactly what the defence of liability must be built around.
The allocation of responsibility is shifted here: the respondent bears liability for defamation if he or she fails to prove that the disputed statement does not contain a substantially false fact about the claimant. In other words, in the case of an ordinary private person the burden of proving truth rests on the media — the substantiation of a published fact must be prepared in advance.
Defamation of a public figure and the good-faith defence
Article 14 of the law sets the same claim structure for a public figure: the claimant presents the statement, indicates the substantially false fact and substantiates the injury to reputation, and liability is imposed on the respondent by the same rule. The difference lies in the third paragraph: the respondent's liability is excluded if, notwithstanding that the disputed statement contains a substantially false fact about the claimant, the respondent proves its own good faith in connection with disseminating the statement.
The law also defines good faith: it is deemed established where, before disseminating the statement, the respondent took all necessary reasonable measures to verify the correctness of the relevant information and the falsity of the fact was unknown to him or her. This is precisely where the legal meaning of an editorial office's daily work lies: documenting the verification steps later becomes the evidence of good faith in court.
Limits of liability and compensation of harm
Article 16 of the law sets the general boundary: a person bears no liability for defamation if he or she did not know and could not have known that he or she was disseminating defamation. The procedure for redress is built by Article 17: in connection with defamation, the respondent may be obliged to publish, in a form determined by the court, an acknowledgement of the court's decision — but compelling the respondent to offer an apology is impermissible; the forms of restoration are strictly defined.
If the court considers that publication of a correction or refutation is not sufficient for the fair compensation of the harm caused to the claimant, then at the claimant's request the respondent may also be obliged to compensate property damage and/or non-property (moral) harm. For the media this means the risk does not end with a refutation — the dispute may reach monetary compensation as well.
Frequently asked questions
Can a journalist be compelled to disclose a source?
No. Under Article 11 of the law the source of professional secrecy is protected by an absolute privilege, and a respondent in court proceedings cannot be burdened with the duty to disclose it; an order is possible only where necessity is proven, and only in relation to that part.
What is the difference between defamation of a private and a public person?
The claim structure is the same in both cases, but for a public figure the respondent can escape liability by proving good faith — where all necessary reasonable measures to verify the truth were taken before dissemination and the falsity was unknown.
Who must prove the truth of published information?
In a defamation dispute the respondent bears no liability if it proves that the statement contains no substantially false fact about the claimant — meaning the evidence substantiating the truth of the fact must be in the media's hands.
Can the media be compelled to apologise?
No. Under Article 17 an apology is excluded: publication of an acknowledgement of the court's decision is possible, and if that is insufficient — at the claimant's request, compensation of property and moral harm.
How We Help on Legal.ge
We review material due for publication from a defamation-risk standpoint: we distinguish factual statements from evaluative conclusions, determine whether the private- or public-figure standard applies, and summarise the verification measures that will underpin a good-faith defence. If a claim is brought, we prepare the response, analyse the claim's conformity with the law's requirements and represent you in court. Contact us for a media-compliance framework that serves both journalistic necessity and legal safety.