Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association criticizes amendments to Freedom of Expression Law

The Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) has publicly criticized recent amendments to the Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression adopted by the Georgian Parliament, describing the changes as a continuation of what it calls a repressive political trend.

The amendments, initiated by the ruling Georgian Dream party and passed in a fast-tracked process on June 27, modify several key aspects of defamation and expression-related legal protections. GYLA claims these revisions eliminate important guarantees that had previously supported freedom of expression, public debate, and media activity in Georgia.

Among the changes highlighted by the organization is the removal of so-called “qualified privilege” for speakers, which had previously protected individuals from liability when making statements in the public interest, even if the information later turned out to be inaccurate—provided reasonable efforts were made to verify the facts. According to GYLA, this removal undermines the right to criticize public figures and participate in political discourse.

“The abolition of qualified privilege contradicts the standards set by the Constitution and international treaties that protect freedom of expression,” the organization stated, adding that “this change weakens the legal space in which individuals can participate in public debate, particularly regarding those in positions of power.”

GYLA also raised concern over the amendments’ provision that shifts the burden of proof in defamation cases from the plaintiff to the defendant. The organization warned that this change may be used against critical journalists and could foster an environment of self-censorship, especially in the context of what it sees as a growing number of lawsuits aimed at silencing media through strategic litigation.

Additionally, the new legislation broadens the grounds on which individuals can be held liable for public insults and introduces vague language replacing the civil liability clause for defamation with the term “appropriate responsibility,” which GYLA argues could open the door to future criminalization.

The organization also pointed to the weakening of legal protections for confidential sources and professional secrets. “This change will lead to fewer protections for journalists exposing misconduct or corruption involving high-ranking public officials,” GYLA warned.

Of particular concern to the association is a provision allowing the law to be applied retroactively to statements made up to 100 days prior to its enactment. GYLA argues that this violates the principle of legal certainty, which is considered a cornerstone of the rule of law. “A person could not reasonably have anticipated the legal consequences of actions taken before the law was adopted,” the statement reads.