On June 18, Georgian Dream initiated amendments to the Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression, which were reviewed by Parliament under an accelerated procedure. On June 26, Parliament unanimously adopted sweeping restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. These amendments are a continuation of more than ten legislative changes introduced by Georgian Dream that either restrict previously protected human rights standards or impose stricter sanctions for various violations.

Key Changes Introduced by the Law:

• Redefinition of Defamation:
  Defamation is now defined as a “substantially false and damaging statement,” with the requirement to prove harm removed. Under the current version of the law, proof of harm is essential in determining whether a statement constitutes defamation.
• Shifting the Burden of Proof:
  The burden of proof in defamation cases is shifted to the defendant—the person who made the statement—who must now prove the truthfulness of the statement. Previously, this burden rested with the claimant.
• Expansion of Damage Compensation:
  If the court finds that a retraction or correction is insufficient to remedy the harm caused, the defendant may be required to pay moral and/or material damages.
• Elimination of Protection Mechanisms:
  The provision stating that a defendant’s refusal to disclose a source or professional secret cannot be the sole basis for a judgment against them is being abolished.
• Abolishment of “Qualified Privilege”:
  The law will no longer protect individuals who made a factual error despite conducting reasonable fact-checking, acted in the public interest, or reported fairly and accurately on issues of public concern. This change is expected to especially harm critical media and journalists, particularly in cases where subjects of reports often refuse to cooperate.
• New Restrictions on Public Insult:
  The law introduces content-based regulation of freedom of expression if it concerns “insults in public spaces.” Previously, only direct, face-to-face insults were  legally actionable.  Now, broader categories of public insult fall within the law’s scope.
• Elimination of a Key Safeguard on Privacy and Free Expression:
  The clause stating that the right to privacy cannot be used as a basis to restrict freedom of expression is being removed. This safeguard previously protected the media and the public in cases where information of public interest also implicated private matters, particularly involving public officials. Its removal increases the risk of suppressing information under the pretext of protecting privacy, undermining transparency and democratic accountability
• Retroactive Enforcement:
  The law includes a 100-day retroactive provision, meaning that the new regulations will apply to statements made up to 100 days before the law officially comes into force.
• Removal of a Pro-Free Expression Clause:
  The following phrase will also be removed from the law: “Any doubt that cannot be resolved according to the procedures established by law must be resolved against restricting freedom of speech.”

These legislative changes significantly hinder the work of independent media, civil society, and critical citizens, and run counter to both constitutional and international human rights standards.