Some regulations may be used to restrict media and freedom of expression, says TI on changes in broadcasting law
By Liza Mchedlidze
Friday, September 23, 2022
"Transparency International - Georgia" (TI) published an assessment of the changes to be made in the Law on "Broadcasting".
According to the organization, some of the regulations presented in the amendments may be used by the authorities to limit the freedom of the media and critical expression.
"This is not the first time when the government presents a legislative package with the motive of fulfilling the EU directive. As a rule, these initiatives are followed by legitimate criticisms and questions directed not directly at the directive, but at the authorities and especially at the Communications Commission. Unfortunately, there were many attempts by the authorities to implement changes under the guise of fulfilling international obligations, which would limit the freedom of critical expression and create additional obstacles.
The new draft law aims to bring the Law on Broadcasting into line with the European Directive 2010/13/EU on Audiovisual Media Services, including the changes made in 2018 (DIRECTIVE (EU) 2018/1808). Unlike the previous initiative, in the current package, there is no longer a rule to appeal the decision made by the self-regulatory organizations to the commission or to the court. However, some innovations are still problematic and it is important that these norms are not adopted without consultation and reconciliation of the positions of the interested parties.
- Norms related to the prohibition of hate speech and incitement to terrorism
First of all, it should be noted the risks associated with the definition of hate speech in the country, especially on the part of the government and the regulator, which may result in the limitation of critical opinion.
- Right of response
According to the amendment, the interested person, whose legal interests were harmed by the transmission of incorrect facts in the broadcaster's program, has the right to reply. In particular, to request the broadcaster to correct or deny the spread of false fact by commensurate means and form. According to the directive, the broadcaster's refusal of the right to answer should be subject to a court judgment, while according to the current draft law, the broadcaster's refusal can be appealed to the commission together with the court.
The nature of EU directives and the inclusive process
First of all, the nature of the EU directive itself and the conditions of implementation should be explained. In particular, a directive is a legislative act, the addressee of which is the state. For the directive, the most important thing is for the country to fulfill the goal mentioned in it, and what way, form and means it chooses to achieve the set goal is up to the state itself. Consequently, when implementing the directive, states are more flexible and have more opportunities to cooperate with the media sector and share their positions.
Also significant is the difficult media environment in the country, which is openly discussed by local and international organizations, including the European Union. Unfortunately, the risks are quite high in the background when there are legitimate doubts about the bias towards the government of independent state institutions, including the regulatory commission.
Given the existing experience, there is an expectation in society that these changes may be used to limit the freedom of media and critical expression. This doubt is also strengthened by the fact that there are a number of cases when government officials start talking about the limitations of critical media activities precisely in response to legitimate questions posed to them.
It would be desirable if interested persons were actively involved in the process of preparing the presented draft law. We hope that the promise made by the representatives of the ruling party at the meeting of the committees held on September 19, that a working meeting will be held in the near future, in which the positions of all interested parties will be heard, will be fulfilled.
We call on the Parliament of Georgia to take into account the positions of the interested parties as much as possible during the working meeting and to reflect them in the draft law", Transparency International's assessment reads.
