On June 12, the media outlets POSTV and Imedi released a list of European countries where defamation, bullying, and insults on social media are punishable by law.
The social media cards were disseminated in parallel with the amendments made to Georgia’s Code of Administrative Offenses in February 2025. Accordingly, it is likely that the goal was to draw a parallel with European legislation and identify similarities. The impression is created that the tightened legal provisions, which have been criticized by both international and local organizations, also exist in the legislative documents of European countries and are often even stricter than those in Georgia.
According to the changes in Georgian legislation, Article 173 has been expanded: verbal insult, swearing, or insulting actions against a public or state official, or a political officeholder, is punishable by a fine of up to 4,000 GEL or up to 45 days of administrative detention. This rule also applies to opinions expressed on social media. In addition, the ruling party, Georgian Dream, adopted a bill in an expedited manner, under which verbal disrespect toward a judge becomes a criminal offense under any circumstances.
EU countries do indeed combat hate speech and discrimination, including discriminatory content disseminated online. However, in relation to freedom of expression and democratic principles, their laws and sanctions differ significantly from those in Georgia. In every European country, the law protects citizens and minorities – no country protects only politicians. This is the key difference that unites European countries. Still, although EU member states are guided by the 2008 legal framework on regulating hate speech, each country has its own specific precedents, context, approaches, and statistics.
- The European Union Against Hate Speech
The European Union combats hate speech both through legal mechanisms and by promoting tolerance and media literacy. The aim of its regulations, recommendations, and normative acts is to protect society and citizens from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or other characteristics, as well as from potential violence and threats. In no European country do the laws offer special protection to public officials or high-ranking politicians. On the contrary, based on the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR/ECtHR), harsher criticism is permissible toward public officials, since their decisions and opinions affect society and are of public interest.
At the legislative level, several EU acts and framework decisions can be considered in relation to hate speech:
- Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA – This EU framework decision, adopted in 2008, aims to harmonize criminal legislation among member states against racism and xenophobia. According to the document, incitement to hatred or violence, or encouragement based on skin color, race, ethnicity, or religion, as well as denial or justification of genocide or other serious crimes, must be criminalized in national law. The decision has historical context: in the 2000s, racially motivated violence and Holocaust denial became more frequent in Eastern and Central Europe. There were growing concerns about the potential resurgence of Nazism. For example, in 2000, the European Monitoring Centre published statistics showing a significant increase in racially motivated crimes across Europe. Since 2021, work has been underway to include hate speech in the EU’s list of common criminal offenses (Article 83(1) TFEU) and to expand the list of protected characteristics to include disability, sexual orientation, gender, and age.
- Cybercrime Convention – Additional Protocol – The Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime primarily addresses the criminalization of incitement to violence and the dissemination of racist and xenophobic content online. The document seeks to establish international legal standards so that member states respond consistently to threats in virtual space. According to the protocol, member states must establish laws requiring online platforms to remove illegal content within a specific timeframe. Individual users bear responsibility when they deliberately and repeatedly disseminate content that poses a real threat via the internet. Investigations pay particular attention to the tone, context, target audience, intent of the author, and whether the content is likely to cause actual harm.
- Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online – A voluntary agreement between the European Commission and online platforms (such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, etc.), intended to curb the spread of hate speech and ensure the removal of dangerous and illegal content.
- The Digital Services Act (DSA) – The Digital Services Act is an EU regulation that came into effect in 2024. It aims to protect internet users from disinformation, fraud, and hate speech. The act increases the responsibility and accountability of large digital platforms (such as Google, Meta, etc.). Platforms are required to monitor questionable algorithms, ensure transparency, remove illegal content, and publish reports detailing content removal statistics and circumstances. While the Code of Conduct is a non-binding political and ethical agreement, the DSA has legal force.
The Digital Services Act has sparked debate in the press and among the public since its inception. Critics argue that the terms “harmful” and “illegal” content are too broad and open to interpretation, which could result in undue restrictions on freedom of expression. There are also concerns that platforms, in an effort to shield themselves from liability, might remove content that actually falls within the bounds of free speech. The DSA and Europe’s broader stance on hate speech have been subject to criticism in the American press as well. In the U.S., hate speech is not criminalized; even intolerant views are protected under freedom of expression. The EU’s approach has both supporters and opponents. However, in terms of content, form, context, and purpose, the normative and recommendatory acts listed above are not connected to – and do not resemble – the law adopted in Georgia concerning insults directed at public officials.
- What Does National Legislation Look Like in European Countries?
In September 2024, the European Parliamentary Research Service published an analytical review examining the legislation of EU member states concerning hate speech and hate crimes. The review shows that national laws among member states vary significantly. Some countries take a strict approach to hate speech, while others are far more liberal.
Strict, detailed, and widely applicable laws – Criminal codes prohibit all forms of hate speech directed at protected groups based on ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other characteristics. Such laws are in force in countries like Austria, Germany, and France. Hate crimes are considered aggravating circumstances. In Germany, the 2017 Network Enforcement Act, NetzDG, regulates social networks. The law requires platforms with more than two million users to remove clearly illegal content within 24 hours; if the illegality of the content requires verification, the deadline extends to one week. Failure to comply results in financial penalties for platforms. The law targets content that promotes terrorist organizations, Nazi symbols, threats, or incitement to violence. The reasons for such strict legislation can be found in both historical and contemporary contexts. Germany and Austria, with their traumatic experiences of the Holocaust and Nazi regime, take a hardline stance against any form of hate speech that could revive extremism. In Belgium, France, and the Netherlands, which have large immigrant populations, the ruling parties believe that combating hate speech is essential for maintaining social harmony and stability in such diverse societies. A report by ZDF recounts the murder of politician Walter Lübcke. The introduction of the NetzDG law in Germany is partly linked to the 2015 migration crisis and Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to open borders to migrants and refugees. Part of society opposed this decision. Social networks were flooded with Islamophobic and racist content, including threats against Merkel, journalists, and activists. Walter Lübcke, a member of the Christian Democratic Union, openly supported migration policy, which led to a wave of online hate and threats against him. In June 2019, Lübcke was murdered in his home by a far-right extremist. Therefore, the NetzDG law was not merely a technical regulation but a response aimed at preventing real threats arising from hate speech.
According to the research, in some European countries, hate speech is criminalized when directed at protected groups but is rarely enforced in practice due to the legal complexity of gathering sufficient evidence. Countries like Slovenia, Slovakia, Croatia, and Poland fall into this category. In most cases, enforcement requires the presence of accompanying violence. For example, in Slovenia in 2023, out of 160 recorded cases, only one resulted in a conviction. Some countries do not include sexual orientation (pg. 7) or gender identity among the protected characteristics. Such countries include Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Estonia.
In several EU member states, laws are significantly more liberal, and enforcement only begins when there is a direct call to harm. Countries such as Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Lithuania, and Latvia prioritize the individual’s right to express their opinion, even if offensive or unacceptable, over state intervention in content, even for preventive purposes. This softer approach is partly rooted in a longstanding culture of free speech. Sweden and Finland were among the first countries in the world to enshrine freedom of expression in their constitutions (Sweden’s Freedom of the Press Act, 1766). These countries adhere to the principle that criminalization is an extreme measure to be used only when other methods fail. Rather than strict legislative intervention, Scandinavian and Baltic countries focus on increasing awareness about tolerance and media literacy. Therefore, they address hate speech not through legal means, but through education and self-regulation.
- What Is Happening in Georgia?
Article 17 of the Constitution of Georgia (“Freedom of opinion and the expression of opinion shall be protected. No one shall be persecuted because of his/her opinion or for expressing his/her opinion”) guarantees freedom of speech and expression. According to the Constitution, this right may only be restricted in extreme cases, where its exercise causes serious harm.
In a 2009 ruling by the Constitutional Court of Georgia, it was also stated that certain expressions may be offensive or provoke undesirable behavior, yet this alone is not a legitimate reason for the state to restrict the freedom of information. A 2014 study by the Georgian Institute for Democratic Development examined the legal framework on hate speech in Georgia. It clearly shows that while some hate speech regulations already existed, Georgian law was largely aligned with the American model, where even offensive opinions are considered a legitimate form of free expression. The study recommended that Georgia should protect minorities from hate speech, but not at the expense of restricting freedom of expression. Instead, it advised raising public awareness around tolerance and pluralism..
Amid mass protests and public dissatisfaction, a new law was adopted in 2025 that specifically bans verbal insults directed at public officials, including in online spaces. Verbal disrespect toward a judge also became punishable in any circumstance. The amendments to the Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression were approved on June 25. Changes to the Code of Administrative Offenses were criticized by both the Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR. Their assessments noted that the rushed, unreviewed adoption of the law violates the European Convention on Human Rights and that extending administrative detention is disproportionate.
Following the law’s enactment, citizens, journalists, and politicians have already been fined for opinions expressed on social media. Some activists were sentenced to administrative detention. Other complaints are still under review, and in none of the cases has a court issued an acquittal.
In an interview with us, lawyer Tamta Kakhidze spoke about the flaws in the new law and the case of journalist Vika Bukia, one of the accused. Vika Bukia had shared a Facebook post in which she called MP Mariam Lashkhi “a slave.” Judge Davit Tetrauli deemed the post unlawful and fined the journalist 4,000 GEL.
“The law introduced on February 6 is unconstitutional. It contradicts Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression. If we look at the Law on Normative Acts, the Convention ranks higher than the Code of Administrative Offenses. The Convention should therefore be the starting point. The Constitution, which also guarantees free expression, is the supreme law. According to international practice, the higher the public official’s rank, the more open to criticism they must be. The Strasbourg Court differentiates between public and private figures. When the subject is a public official, the boundaries of permissible criticism are broader. The European Court often argues that if a public figure makes a statement likely to provoke criticism, they are obliged to accept it,” says Tamta Kakhidze.
“In Vika Bukia’s case, there was a clear context. Mariam Lashkhi supported the so-called Russian law, and students were arrested as a result of her complaint. The offensive remark was directed at her action that had a societal impact. The post contained no discriminatory language, threats, or incitement to violence that could have led to real harm. Yes, ‘slave’ is insulting, but it doesn’t exceed reasonable limits. The right to free expression protects precisely those forms of speech that are offensive, shocking, or critical – not compliments.”
Tamta Kakhidze added that during the trial, the Ministry of Internal Affairs explicitly stated that their aim was to create a “chilling effect,” i.e., not to punish a specific individual, but to intimidate others in society:
“Legally, the state’s intent to produce a ‘chilling effect’ is in itself grounds for establishing a violation. For the Strasbourg Court, this is such a serious argument that it may be sufficient to win a case even without other arguments,” Kakhidze noted.
The problem of hate speech in Georgia is longstanding. Offensive language and hate speech have been used by public officials, including police officers and MPs, yet their actions have not resulted in legal consequences.
Additionally, under the current law, the distribution of fines is disproportionate. The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights has stated that administrative fines that do not consider an individual’s economic status may violate human rights (Article 99). Moreover, financial sanctions must be proportional to the severity of the offense. For offensive remarks directed at public officials on social media, individuals from various professions have already been fined between GEL 2,500 and 4,000. In some cases, administrative detention was also applied. By contrast, Valeri Kochiashvili was fined just GEL 1,000 for insulting the German ambassador – not on social media but in person. Two individuals who assaulted people in a drunken state at the Rustaveli metro station, captured on video threatening and inciting violence, were fined GEL 2,000. An investigation was launched into the mass of offensive and threatening calls made from foreign phone numbers to citizens, but it did not yield any significant results.
These cases clearly show that the new laws targeting opinions expressed on social media serve to protect only public officials and senior officeholders, not citizens or minorities. They protect not against violence or discrimination, but against criticism. The context in which the law was adopted – rejection of EU negotiations, intensified criticism from the West, restrictive laws, and arrests – raises serious doubts about the democratic nature of the initiative. Especially considering that prior to these events, the state’s approach to hate speech was sometimes considered overly lenient.
Germany, which is often cited by Georgian pro-government media and politicians as a parallel case, introduced stricter laws in response to real-life precedent (Lübcke’s murder) and a rise in extremist sentiment. The goal of the German government is to protect all citizens, including politicians, the opposition, and minorities, from organized hate crimes. The effectiveness of harsh legal measures is a topic of ongoing debate. However, even the strictest laws in European countries differ from Georgia’s in their intent, justification, and enforcement.ან მიზნებით, მიზეზებითა და აღსრულებით.
Tsisia Moistsrapishvili
Myth Detector Lab
