GYLA Condemns Amendments to Freedom of Expression Law as Repressive
By Liza Mchedlidze
Wednesday, July 2, 2025
The Young Lawyers' Association (GYLA) has strongly criticized the recent amendments to Georgia's "Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression," calling them repressive and a direct attack on democratic freedoms.
"GYLA notes that the amendments to the Freedom of Expression Act are yet another example of Georgian Dream's repressive policy, aimed at shrinking freedom of expression, political discourse, pluralism, media, and civil space," the organization stated in a public release.
The amendments, initiated by the ruling Georgian Dream party, were rapidly considered by Parliament on June 18 and adopted in the third reading on June 27, 2025. GYLA argues that the changes undermine key protections that safeguard freedom of expression in a democratic society.
"These changes remove significant guarantees of freedom of expression," GYLA said. "Most notably, they abolish the qualified privilege and shift the burden of proof in defamation cases from the plaintiff to the respondent. The wording is also changed to impose 'appropriate liability' for defamation in civil proceedings."
GYLA expressed particular concern about the elimination of qualified privilege, a legal protection that previously shielded individuals and journalists when they spoke on matters of public interest with due diligence and care.
"This change contradicts constitutional and international standards protecting freedom of expression," the statement explained. "Qualified privilege is essential to democratic pluralism - it shields participants in public discourse, particularly concerning public figures. Its removal undermines that foundational democratic safeguard."
The association also warned about the shift in the burden of proof in defamation cases, stating that it would encourage abusive litigation aimed at silencing critics.
"Journalists must be free to verify their sources and publish responsibly. The prior law met these standards, but the new one severely lowers them in Georgia. This will exacerbate existing abusive SLAPP litigation, where courts often impose burdensome standards on the defense, treat defamation claims with undue procedural speed, or accept them without thorough justification. The amendments institutionalize these problematic court practices," GYLA stated.
Another key concern involves vague terminology introduced into the law. The new version of Article 13 replaces "civil liability for defamation" with "appropriate liability for defamation," a phrase GYLA describes as alarmingly undefined.
"Criminal defamation would be a grave incursion into freedom of expression. UN human rights experts consistently advise against criminalizing defamation. The European Court regards criminal penalties as disproportionate. This amendment paves the way for dangerous precedents and equips the ruling party with another tool to silence criticism," the statement read.
The association further criticized the weakening of protections for journalists' confidential sources and professional secrecy, noting the importance of these safeguards for investigative reporting.
"In democratic societies, exposing government or official wrongdoing - even when based on confidential or classified information - is crucial for public oversight. Weakening these standards leaves journalists vulnerable, particularly when reporting on corruption or misconduct, thus undermining transparency and accountability," GYLA said.
One of the most contentious elements of the amendments is their retroactive application. The law will apply to actions taken up to 100 days before its adoption.
"Legal certainty protects individuals' legitimate expectations and is essential to the rule of law. Applying criminal norms retroactively undermines this foundation," the association stated. "This change poses a chilling effect on expression, as people cannot reasonably anticipate what actions might become punishable or how their prior actions may be judged."
GYLA warned that the cumulative effect of the amendments represents a serious step backward for democratic governance in Georgia. The organization called on lawmakers, civil society, and international partners to resist efforts to erode fundamental freedoms.
