Georgian parliament backs amendments to free speech law in first reading

JAMnews

Tbilisi

Georgia passes freedom of speech law amendments

Georgia’s ruling Georgian Dream party has unanimously passed amendments to the Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression in the first reading. One provision states that the 100-day statute of limitations for filing defamation claims will apply retroactively to statements made before the law takes effect.

In addition, the bill significantly restricts freedom of expression by shifting the burden of proof in defamation cases onto the defendant and removing several legal protections previously granted to journalists and other individuals.

The amendments also revise the definition of defamation to mean a statement that contains a substantially false fact and damages a person’s reputation.

Under the current version of the law, defamation is defined as a statement that contains a substantially false fact, causes harm to a person, and damages their reputation.

The new law will apply to both personal and public insults.

Western reaction to arrests in Georgia: "We must act to prevent second Belarus in Caucasus"

“Political persecution and the imprisonment of opposition leaders run counter to fundamental democratic values”

Davit Matikashvili, Georgian Dream MP:

“After consultations with Deputy Speaker Tea Tsulukiani and other colleagues, we agreed it would be appropriate to include a transitional provision in the legislation. The law states that a person has the right to file a defamation claim within 100 days from the date the false information was disseminated, or from the date the claimant became aware of it. The transitional clause will allow for statements made prior to the law’s entry into force to be considered under the new rules, provided the statute of limitations has not expired.

For example, if the law takes effect on 1 August, the 100-day limitation period will still apply to statements made before that date. If someone believes that a statement made on 1 July is defamatory or damaging to their honour and dignity, and no lawsuit was filed previously, they will be able to file the claim after the law comes into force under the new terms. Accordingly, the burden of proof will lie with the person who disseminated the information, not the claimant.”