Yesterday, on February 24-th, "Georgian Dream" initiated two packages of amendments to the Law of Georgia on Broadcasting which are at odds with freedom of expression enshrined by the Constitution and the international human rights law.

The objective of the first [1] package is to cut off critical broadcast media from international donor funding in the situation where due to the objectively limited advertising market and other factors critical broadcasters hardly can survive with solely advertising revenues.

The purpose of the second [2]package is to expand and further tighten the Communications Commission’s administrative control over independent broadcasting media, which again will ultimately threaten the financial sustainability of critical media.

With the proposed amendment, the role of the broadcasting self-regulation mechanism is effectively reduced almost to the point of annulment. Issues such as the accuracy and impartiality of facts disseminated in the media will largely be reviewed by the Communications Regulatory Commission.

1. Ban on Receiving Funding from a "Foreign Power"

According to the first package of amendments, broadcasters are prohibited from receiving direct or indirect funding (monetary or any other material benefits) from a foreign power. Accordingly, not only direct financial assistance will be prohibited, but also the transfer of equipment, training of personnel, media development programs, etc. The only exceptions are funds received through commercial advertising, teleshopping, sponsorship, and product placement (goods/services) in programs.

Beyond these exceptions, the purchase of broadcaster services or the direct or indirect funding or co-funding of program production and broadcasting by a foreign power is also prohibited.

2. Who is a "Foreign Power"?

A "foreign power" is defined as:

a) A body that is part of the government system of a foreign state;
b) A natural person who is not a citizen of Georgia;
c) A legal entity that is not established under Georgian law;
d) An organizational entity (foundation, association, corporation, union, or any other type of organization) or any other form of association that is established under the laws of a foreign state and/or international law.

Thus, a foreign power is any natural or legal person, government body, or organization associated in one way or another with another state. Any form of assistance provided by such a person will be prohibited, regardless of how noble or necessary it may be for the country.

3. Minimization of the Role of the Self-Regulation Mechanism and Expansion of the Role of the Communications Commission

According to the current Law on Broadcasting, complaints regarding the accuracy of facts and the right of reply, the obligation to report facts accurately and fairly, war propaganda, and the coverage of news and socio-political programs about events in Georgia and the world can only be filed within the broadcaster's self-regulation mechanism. Decisions made within this mechanism cannot be appealed in court, the Communications Commission, or any other administrative body.

Under the second package of amendments to the Law on Broadcasting, complaints regarding accuracy of facts, intrusion of privacy and other issues can be submitted by an interested person either through the broadcaster’s self-regulation mechanism or directly to the Communications Commission. This means that, de jure, the self-regulation mechanism remains in place, but de facto, its function is transferred to the Communications Commission. If the goal is to penalize a broadcaster, there is almost no chance that a complaint will be filed through the self-regulation mechanism instead of the Commission.

If a violation is determined, the Commission has the authority to impose fines on the broadcaster amounting to 0.5%, 1%, or 3% of its annual revenue, depending on the circumstances. Additionally, the Commission may suspend or revoke the broadcaster’s license.

4. New Requirements for Broadcasters

The second package of amendments expands the requirements concerning factual accuracy, fairness, and impartiality.

a) Interference with Editorial Policy under the Pretext of "Fairness and Impartiality"

According to the amendments, "It is prohibited for a broadcaster to cover information related to political or other conflicts or ongoing public policy issues in a news program based on the broadcaster’s personal opinion or stance. It is also prohibited to express a supportive or opposing position toward any political party, public or religious organization, or other interest group in a program."

This provision effectively grants the Communications Commission the power to interfere with a broadcaster's editorial policy, eventually leading to censorship or self-sensorship.

Additionally, the amendments introduce a requirement for all significant alternative opinions to be adequately represented in an authorial program. The distortion of facts or opinions and the misinterpretation of differing viewpoints must be avoided.

This vague provision allows the Communications Commission to classify any broadcaster’s interpretation as a distortion of "fact or opinion," providing broad authority to control media content.

b) Restriction of Freedom of Expression under the Pretext of "Privacy Protection"

The amendments introduce a special provision that supposedly aims to protect "the inviolability of private life." However, in reality, its provisions are excessively vague and could serve as a basis for unjustified restrictions on a broadcaster’s freedom of expression.

For example, one provision states: "When making a video or audio recording on the premises of a public or private institution, the consent of an authorized representative of the institution is required, except in cases where unauthorized recording is justified by public interest."

Firstly, restricting the ability of broadcast media, especially investigative journalism, to make video and audio recordings essentially strips it of its function.

Secondly, equating public and private institutions for the purposes of this restriction and applying the same protection standard to both is unacceptable. Public institutions are funded by taxpayers, and citizens should be able to access audiovisual information about activities of public institutions without requiring permission.

Thirdly, the exception regarding "public interest" raises questions about its definition. When a broadcaster covers a particular event, it is inherently guided by public interest; otherwise, its programs would simply be irrelevant to the audience. Determining what constitutes public interest should be a matter of the broadcaster’s editorial policy, shaped by the demands of the information market.

However, when such a concept is embedded in a legal provision, the authority to determine it shifts outside the broadcaster—to the Communications Commission—providing yet another pretext for unjustified editorial interference.

Of course, the right to privacy should be protected in a democratic society, but this issue should be addressed through private law, allowing individuals to file lawsuits in court rather than enabling administrative interference in a broadcaster’s activities.

c) Other Vague Provisions

The second package of amendments also includes other questionable provisions that require further analysis, which would take more time and space to fully examine.

Conclusion

The amendments initiated by the ruling party clearly contradict international standards applicable to freedom of expression and will further worsen the situation of critical media in Georgia. Their main objectives are:

1. To weaken or completely eliminate independent broadcasting media by restricting its financial revenue sources. At a time when the international community is discussing, on the one hand, suspending international programs for the Georgian Dream government and, on the other hand, increasing support for civil society, especially the Georgian media, the introduction of such regulations will prevent independent media from receiving financial or other types of assistance. This is primarily perceived as the ruling party's response to international support for Georgian media.
2. To introduce censorship or self-censorship in the media and impose content control over critical channels. The role of censor will be assigned to the Communications Commission, an institution that has repeatedly demonstrated its bias in favor of the government and to the detriment of independent media. It appears that the authorities are dissatisfied with their previous attempts to control the information and commentary broadcast by critical channels. This likely explains the introduction of these new restrictive measures.
3. To create favorable conditions for Russian and anti-Western propaganda and disinformation. By weakening or entirely removing independent television channels from the media landscape and imposing restrictions on Western media programs, television channels that primarily spread disinformation and anti-Western rhetoric will gain a dominant position. Until now, the segment of society critical of the government could counterbalance the anti-Western and pro-Russian narratives disseminated by state-controlled channels with the strongly anti-Russian content of critical media. From now on, access to alternative and critical commentary will be significantly restricted.