On February 24, the deputies of "Georgian Dream" initiated three alarming draft laws on amendments to the Law of Georgia on Broadcasting, which fundamentally contradict the fundamental rights enshrined in international human rights law and the Constitution of Georgia.

The first[1] and second[2] draft laws are directed against the freedoms of the media, association, speech, and expression, while the third draft law[3] is against the right to equality and the prohibition of discrimination.

The following document analyzes the proposed changes outlined in the draft laws, including their content, scope of application, and alignment with international human rights standards.

First Draft Law – Substantive Restrictions and Regulations on the Activities of Broadcaster

According to the first draft law on amendments to the Law of Georgia on Broadcasting, the law will be supplemented with detailed regulations regarding television and radio broadcasting standards, including the accuracy of facts, the right to reply, fairness and impartiality, the inviolability of private life, the use of covert methods to obtain and disseminate information, coverage of armed conflict, accidents, and other emergency situations, as well as certain issues related to the protection of minors[4].

A significant part of the detailed regulations presented in the draft law is taken from the broadcasters' code of conduct[5].  Under the previous legislation, television and radio broadcasting standards were regulated by the broadcasters' code of conduct, which was approved by the National Communications Commission of Georgia through a subordinate normative act, Regulation No. 2. Previously, violations of broadcasting standards were addressed through broadcasters' self-regulation mechanisms.[6] Specifically, based on the code of conduct, broadcasters operate internal self-regulation bodies that handle complaints and responded to them.[7] With the proposed amendments, in addition to self-regulation mechanisms, a state body—the National Communications Commission—would be authorized to respond to violations of broadcasting standards.[8] In the case of a suspected violation, an interested party will be able to submit a complaint directly to the Communications Commission[9]. If a violation is established, the Commission will be authorized to impose the following sanctions on broadcasters: a warning, a fine, and, in certain cases, the suspension or revocation of the license.[10]

According to the report by the non-governmental organization Transparency International Georgia, there have been longstanding concerns regarding the National Communications Commission due to decisions favorable to the ruling government and several controversial initiatives aimed at restricting critical voices in the country[11]. One example of such decisions occurred during the pre-election period before the 2024 parliamentary elections, when, based on complaints from the ruling party, numerous dubious violation protocols were drawn up against television channels critical of the government, and these channels were subsequently fined by the courts[12]. It is also noteworthy that the Chairman of the National Communications Commission, Kaha Bekauri, is mentioned in the latest European Parliament resolution among those recommended for sanctions, based on the argument that they contribute to the repressive state apparatus in the country[13]. Accordingly, the expansion of the powers of National Communications Commission concerning the enforcement of broadcasting standards, oversight, and the sanctioning of broadcasters poses significant risks that these tools could be used to silence and repress the critical media outlets operating in the country.

According to the recommendation of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers, self-regulation should be the main method for regulating broadcasting standards for traditional media outlets such as television and radio broadcasters[14]. In cases where the state intervenes in and regulates the substantive standards of broadcasting, such intervention and regulation must not violate the boundaries, conditions, and criteria for interference in rights established by the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights[15].

The amendments to the Law of Georgia on Broadcasting, in addition to granting broad powers to the National Communications Commission, are also problematic from the perspective of substantive regulation. The draft law contains several vague provisions that pose a significant threat to the editorial independence of broadcasters and the freedom of speech and expression, as their content and boundaries are unclear. As a result, it is uncertain how the National Communications Commission will interpret them.

For example, in Article 54, which regulates "fairness and impartiality," the following provisions are outlined:

Article 54. Fairness and Impartiality

1. When broadcasting news, the broadcaster is required to ensure the adherence to the principles of fairness and impartiality.
2. In a news program, the broadcaster must ensure a clear distinction between facts and commentary.
3. It is prohibited for a political representative or a member of a political party to participate as a presenter, interviewer, or journalist in a news or information program.
4. When covering political or other disputes in a news program, the broadcaster must ensure balance either within each program or across a series of programs. If balance is planned to be maintained across a series of programs due to the format of the program, the audience must be informed of this at the start of the program's first day.
5. It is prohibited for the broadcaster to cover political or other disputes or ongoing public policy issues in a news program based on the broadcaster's personal views or opinions. It is also prohibited to express a supporting or opposing position for any political party, public or religious group, or other interest group in the program.
6. Before the broadcast of an editorial program, the audience must be informed that the program is an editorial. In such programs, all significant alternative views must be adequately represented. Distortion of facts or opinions and the misinterpretation of differing views should be avoided.
7. The broadcaster must treat each individual involved in the program with due fairness and respect.
8. A person against whom allegations are made in the program must be given a timely and proper opportunity to respond.
9. Inviting only one interested party to discuss a specific position on a current issue should not be used as a means to attack groups that are not part of the program.
10. Calls received during live broadcasts must be selected in accordance with the principle of fairness, and it is prohibited to express only one viewpoint to avoid manipulating public opinion through these calls.[16]

It is noteworthy that similar legislation to the draft bill initiated by the ruling party is in effect in Hungary. The act adopted by the Hungarian Parliament, "On the Fundamental Rules Concerning Press Freedom and Media Content," similarly to the draft bill initiated in Georgia, contains vague provisions that have been negatively assessed by the Council of Europe's Venice Commission. One such provision imposes an obligation on television and radio broadcasters to ensure balanced coverage of news[17]. According to the Venice Commission's assessment, it is questionable whether the requirement to maintain "balance" in news coverage should be a legally enforceable obligation. "Information (facts) should be complete and accurate, not balanced," the Commission notes. The Venice Commission emphasizes that such norms impose very complex obligations on media outlets, lacking the necessary precision. The vagueness of the terms could turn these provisions into tools for suppressing free speech[18].

The standards of the European Court of Human Rights also require adherence to the principle of legal clarity regarding media freedom of expression regulations. According to the European Court of Human Rights, such norms must be formulated with sufficient precision to allow citizens to properly discern their content and the responsibilities arising from them[19].

The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of freedom of expression in a case concerning the application of the problematic Hungarian legislation described above, involving a journalist from one of the television channels[20]. In this case, the journalist referred to a political party as "ultra-right-wing" during news coverage. National courts assessed that this act violated Hungary's "Media Act" provision, which prohibits broadcasters from expressing their opinions or evaluative comments when covering news of a political nature[21]. This provision resembles the clause in the draft bill initiated in Georgia, which states that "it is prohibited for the broadcaster to cover information about political or other disputes or ongoing public policy issues in a news program based on the broadcaster's personal opinion or approach".[22]

According to the approach of European Court of Human Rights, when it comes to debates on matters of public interest, states do not have broad discretion to intervene in media freedom of expression content. This is due to the strong interest of democratic societies in ensuring that the media performs its vital role as a public watchdog[23]. According to the court's conclusion, the term "ultra-right-wing" used by the journalist could not be considered biased coverage—it did not express the presenter's personal opinion but referred to the political party's position in political life and parliament[24]. The court also took into account the applicant's argument that political parties are often referred to by adjectives describing their goals and programs, which should not be regarded as an evaluative comment that contradicts the interest of unbiased coverage[25].

It is noteworthy that the British broadcasting regulatory standards, which representatives of the "Georgian Dream" point to as a justification for the proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Law in Georgia[26], differ significantly from the provisions presented in the draft bill. For example, the British Broadcasting Code defines the principle of impartiality as follows:

"Due impartiality" does not mean that all views should be given equal time or that all arguments/views should be presented. The approach to due impartiality may vary depending on the subject matter and type of program. In this regard, it is important to consider the context, including the potential harm caused by an alleged violation. The essence of the impartiality principle is that one side should not be given an advantage over the other[27].

According to the British Broadcasting Code, when it comes to contentious issues of a sharp political or industrial nature and current public policy matters, a broad range of significant views should be properly represented and given appropriate attention in each program or in clearly linked program cycles[28].

The British Broadcasting Code prohibits the distortion of facts and opinions[29]. As for the prohibition of "misinterpretation of differing views," which is presented in the draft bill initiated by the ruling party, no such vague provision is found in the British Broadcasting Code.

The British Broadcasting Code also does not include the following vague provisions outlined in the draft bill:

• "When covering political or other types of disputes in news programs, the broadcaster must ensure the balance is maintained in each program or throughout a cycle of programs"[30].
• "In an editorial program, all significant alternative views must be properly represented. Distortion of facts or opinions and misinterpretation of differing views must be avoided"[31].
• "It is prohibited to express support for or opposition to any political party, public or religious association, or other interest group in a program"[32].
• "Inviting only one interested party to a program for the purpose of fully exploring a specific position on a relevant issue must not be used as a means of attacking groups that do not participate in the program"[33].

The second draft bill – Restrictions on funding

According to the second draft bill on amending the Georgian Law on Broadcasting, television and radio broadcasters are prohibited from receiving direct or indirect funding from foreign entities, including monetary funds or other material benefits of property value. Exceptions include commercial advertisements, teleshopping, sponsorship, and product (goods/services) placement in programs. Additionally, foreign entities are prohibited from purchasing broadcasting services (other than for commercial advertisements and product placements) or directly or indirectly funding or co-financing the preparation and/or airing of programs[34].

A foreign entity is defined as:

• A subject within the system of foreign government authority;
• A physical person who is not a citizen of Georgia;
• A legal entity established under foreign law that is not based on Georgian legislation;
• An organizational entity (including a foundation, association, corporation, union, or other types of organization) or a union of individuals established based on the laws of a foreign country or international law[35].

The blanket prohibition on foreign funding for media broadcasters, according to international human rights law, is unequivocally an unjustifiable restriction on freedom of association and expression. This prohibition does not serve any legitimate purpose. It does not protect any public interest or benefit. On the contrary, through this prohibition, the government restricts the public’s access to alternative sources of information and undermines the opportunity to form public opinion on critical issues. The harmful nature of this goal for the broader public is evident in the explanatory note of the draft law, which states that “information disseminated by broadcasters enjoys high trustworthiness and can significantly influence the formation of public opinion, and therefore, it is necessary to restrict foreign funding for broadcasters at the legislative level”[36].

According to representatives of critical television outlets, although the share of foreign funding in their revenues has been small until now, under the increased repression from the government, foreign funding could become a significant source for maintaining their operations[37]. Along with other restrictions, the imposition of barriers in this area clearly indicates the Georgian Dream’s attempt to weaken and intimidate critical media outlets whose work sheds light on the dire situation in the country and widespread human rights violations.

Third Draft Bill – Deterioration of the Situation Regarding Gender Equality

Along with the fight against freedom of association and expression, the ruling party continues to initiate alarming legislative amendments that restrict the right to equality and contain discriminatory content. An example of this is the third draft bill amending the Georgian Law on Broadcasting, which proposes the removal of the words “gender,” “gender identity,” and “gender diversity” from the law. The proposed changes would allow television and radio broadcasters, as well as video-sharing platforms (e.g., Myvideo.ge), to disseminate content that incites hatred based on gender or gender identity.

Under the current version of the Law on Broadcasting, television and radio broadcasters are prohibited from airing programs or advertisements that promote violence or incite hatred against individuals or groups based on characteristics such as disability, ethnicity, social origin, gender, sex, gender identity, nationality, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation, skin color, genetic traits, language, political or other beliefs, membership in a national minority, property, place of birth, or age[38]. According to the draft bill, the words “gender” and “gender identity” would be removed from these provisions[39], meaning that it would become permissible to air, for example, a television program that incites hatred based on gender or gender identity.

The existing edition of the Broadcasting Law stipulates that the public broadcaster must reflect the ethnic, cultural, linguistic, religious, age-related, and gender diversity present in society in its programming[40]. However, according to the bill, the word "gender"[41] has been removed from this provision. As a result, the public broadcaster will no longer be obligated to reflect gender diversity in its programs.

In the context of the consolidation of authoritarian rule, the dismantling of state institutions, and widespread human rights violations, the existence of independent, free spaces outside government control has become of particular importance. One such example in Georgia is the critical media outlets, which, despite facing numerous obstacles, continue to expose crimes committed by the government, large-scale repression, and severe violations of human rights. The government's initiatives against media outlets—such as problematic amendments to the "Broadcasting Law" of Georgia, regulations that restrict media rights, and increased control over them through the Communications Commission—indicate that the government is intensifying its pressure on critical media outlets. This is part of an effort to stifle the remaining independent spaces in the country and further strengthen its authoritarian power.

Share