STOCKHOLM, October 21, 2022 – Georgian authorities should withdraw contested amendments to the country’s broadcasting law and work with stakeholders to develop a regulatory framework that enjoys broad industry support, the Committee to Protect Journalists said on Friday.
In a first reading on September 20, the Georgian parliament passed a package of amendments to the country’s broadcasting law that includes provisions that supporters of local press freedom fear could be used as a weapon against opposition TV stations. Dates for further parliamentary readings of the amendments have yet to be announced, advocates for local media told the CPJ.
If passed, the amendments would transfer powers to rule on alleged broadcasting of hate speech and transfer a right of reply from media self-regulation to the state regulator, the Georgian National Communications Commission (GNCC). GNCC sanctions – fines of up to 3% of a broadcaster’s annual income and suspension of broadcasting – would also be enforceable immediately, rather than after exhausting remedies under existing legislation.
The authors of the draft law argue that the package of amendments is necessary to align Georgian legislation with European Union (EU) law. However, the Georgian Media Advocacy Coalition, a coalition of independent media and legal non-governmental organizations, opposes the current form of the changes that would give the GNCC the power to decide on hate speech and impose immediate sanctions, arguing that these specific changes to EU -law are not required and “significantly increase” the risk of politically biased decisions towards critical media.
“Given Georgia’s widely recognized problems with political polarization and the apparent lack of stakeholder confidence in its Communications Commission, moves to strengthen the commission’s sanctions powers are deeply inappropriate and should be discarded,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. in NYC. “Georgian authorities should work with media experts and broadcasters to develop a regulatory regime that does not pose a risk of partisan use.”
Currently, complaints about alleged hate speech and the right of reply are decided by the broadcasters’ own internal self-regulatory groups, which each broadcaster is required to establish by law, or by the independent trade group Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics (GCJE), whose decisions are based solely on recommendations, Mariam said Gogosashvili, Executive Director of GCJE (a member organization of the Media Advocacy Coalition), on the phone to CPJ.
While Gogosashvili agrees with the GNCC’s criticism that self-regulation has not proven effective, granting the GNCC the power to decide on hate speech – which has no precise definition in Georgian law – poses a “real risk” that arbitrary decisions could be made used to wreak havoc with fines that will result in the closure of critical media outlets, she said.
The GNCC’s members are nominated by the country’s president and prime minister and elected by parliament, and many stakeholders question its independence from the ruling Georgian Dream party, Gogosashvili and Mamuka Andguladze, a media program manager at anti-corruption NGO Transparency International, told Georgia CPJ. Gogosashvili cited a series of maximum sentences imposed by the GNCC on opposition broadcaster Mtavari Arkhi, whose director Nika Gvaramia is currently serving a three-and-a-half-year prison sentence seen as retaliation for Mtavari’s critical reporting.
When asked to comment on the allegation that granting GNCC the power to decide hate speech and enforce immediate sanctions would increase the risk of politically biased decisions, GNCC told CPJ via email that allegations of bias ” “categorically unacceptable” since all its decisions are transparent and derive from current legislation, adding that it acted “in full compliance with the law” by punishing Mtavari.
Gogosashvili said allowing GNCC sanctions to take effect immediately is particularly dangerous. While GNCC decisions can be challenged in court, such cases can take years to hear because rulings come far too late to save outlets forced to close, she said.
Instead of GNCC regulation or broadcaster self-regulation, Gogosashvili recommends a form of co-regulation that would involve decisions by an independent trade body with the support of the GNCC, although she said the exact form for that has yet to be determined. Gogosashvili’s recommendation is in line with the Council of Europe’s expert advice on Georgia, which has been reviewed by the CPJ.
GNCC told CPJ that it “supports the idea of self-regulation and co-regulation in general” but has questions about the effectiveness of co-regulation of hate speech and its compatibility with EU audiovisual legislation.
Authorities drafted the bill without consulting independent stakeholders, but a consultation process has started after the first parliamentary reading, Gogosashvili and Andguladze said.
CPJ emailed the Georgia state legislature for comment, but received no response.
