On 12 June, Tbilisi City Court reviewed administrative offense cases against 18 individuals[1] accused of insulting politicians. The summoned individuals included 6 journalists, 5 members of opposition parties, and 7 civil society activists. The majority received notification of the hearing the night before, during non-business hours.[2]

The Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) has initiated proceedings against activists, political figures, and media representatives for allegedly publishing offensive posts and comments targeting 'Georgian Dream' MPs Mariam Lashkhi, Mamuka Mdinaradze, Lasha Talakhadze, and Tea Tsulukiani. In some cases, legal proceedings were initiated over posts made on social media months ago. For instance, the ministry accuses journalist Dea Mamiseishvili of insulting Mamuka Mdinaradze in a post published on February 25.

Administrative case files reveal that the MIA relies primarily on social media monitoring reports,[3] compiled by detectives from its Operational Unit, as evidence against citizens. These reports involve the review of online content, including posts and comments made months ago. This practice raises serious concerns about attempts to exercise blanket control and silence dissenting voices through censorship.

It is important to emphasize that the 'Georgian Dream' MPs, whose alleged insult served as the legal basis for the administrative proceedings against citizens, were absent from the court hearings. Accorded to Aleko Elisashvili, Judge Lela Mildenberger denied a motion to summon MP Lasha Talakhadze as a witness, citing time constraints (the judge expelled Elisashvili from the courtroom).[4] The rejection of this motion lacks justification, especially given the MP’s clear relevance to the case, as he is the person who could confirm whether the expression in question was perceived by him as offensive.

Approximately one week prior to the court proceedings, representatives of 'Georgian Dream' publicly announced their intent to initiate legal action over social media posts deemed insulting to politicians. On 6 June, MP Irakli Kirkzkhalia stated that the measure would not be limited to incidents occurring in physical public spaces, but would also encompass individuals publishing critical commentary about the party online.[5] Subsequently, on 12 June, just hours before the scheduled hearings, MP Nino Tsilosani characterized the initiative as a model approach, asserting that the imposition of monetary fines would encourage respectful and civil discourse. She clarified that no arrests would be made, as the applicable sanctions are administrative in nature.[6]

It is important to note that the verbal insult of a public official in a state/political position was designated as an administrative offense under the legislative amendments that were enacted in February 2025. The penalty for such an offense is excessively severe, with the possibility of administrative detention for up to 45 days or a fine of 1,500 to 4,000 GEL. This provision, in conjunction with the broader package of legislative amendments that were adopted in February, has been the subject of criticism from a number of reputable institutions, such as the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR, as detailed in their joint assessments published in March 2025.[7]

Beyond its unconstitutionality, the provision criminalizing insults against public officials raises serious concerns related to legal certainty and imposes a disproportionate restriction on freedom of expression.[8] Its extension to the digital realm is particularly troubling. In today’s world, social media serves as a vital platform for political activism and the organization of protest movements. The punishment of political expression on these platforms fosters a perception of mass surveillance and has a chilling effect on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression.

The imposition of liability for critical, even offensive, expression directed at politicians, particularly on social media, is a clear violation of international human rights standards. The European Court of Human Rights determined in the case of Özlü v. Türkiye that the Turkish authorities had infringed upon the applicant's right to freedom of expression. The case involved a journalist's severely worded posts on Twitter (now X), which, despite their harshness, were not deemed to constitute incitement to violence or hate speech. The Court placed particular emphasis on the fact that the social media posts in question were directed at public officials (representatives of state institutions) and that their content concerned matters related to politics and the judiciary, which were the subjects of high public interest at the time.[9]

The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly underscored the heightened protection afforded to journalists’ freedom of expression. In Ahmet Hüsrev Altan v. Turkey, the Court aligned with the position of the Commissioner for Human Rights, noting that censorship of journalists exerts a chilling and deterrent effect on the dissemination of information on matters of high public interest, both within the media sector and in society at large. The Court held that sanctioning journalists for expressing non-violent opinions constitutes a disproportionate and unjustified interference with their freedom of expression.

It is becoming increasingly evident that the 'Georgian Dream' is using online censorship as a means to intimidate and suppress dissenting citizens, beyond the public and private spaces. Throughout this process, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the judiciary have demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the procedural guarantees owed to those facing charges and international human rights standards.

The initiation of proceedings months after the publication of social media posts clearly demonstrates that the intent of Georgian Dream is not to address legal infractions or safeguard public interest or institutional authority. Rather, it aims to target individuals with critical views and to foster a perception of comprehensive surveillance and control over both the informational and digital spaces within society.

Share