According to the statement issued by the Commission on 7 December 2020, it has become clear to us that the Communications Commission is planning to interpret the entries of the Law of Georgia on Broadcasting in a new way, toclaim the self-regulatory function and to apply new sanctions against broadcasters on the grounds of broadcasting a programme or advertisement containing obscenity that violates human and citizen dignity and fundamental rights. It is important to note here that according to Article 14 of the Law of Georgia on Broadcasting, it is the self-regulatory body of a broadcaster itself that is responsible for responding to the issues of broadcasting obscene programmes or advertisements that violate human dignity and fundamental rights. In addition, it was forbidden to appeal to the Commission or the Court on this particular issue. In 2009, in the case of “Citizens of Georgia – Giorgi Kipiani and Avtandil Ungiadze vs. Parliament of Georgia”, the Constitutional Court recognised as unconstitutional the legislative norm that did not allow the possibility of applying to the court for the placement of programmes or advertisements containing obscenity that violate the dignity and fundamental human rights. But the Constitutional Court did not rule on the issue of the possibility of applying to the Commission. Thus, the ruling of the Constitutional Court does not recognise the right to appeal to the Commission unlikethe Court. Therefore, we cannot agree with the context of reasoning of the decision indicated by the Commission.
We believe that the statement of the Communications Commission of 7 December 2020 does not comply with the requirements of the Georgian Law on Broadcasting and the Georgian Constitution. Control over the content of freedom of expression is the most severe form of restriction of this right. We believe that with the introduction of such a practice, there is a direct threat of censorship and the possibility of restricting freedom of expression without justification.
We call on the Communications Commission to
– Act within the law and not interfering with the content of a broadcaster;
– Views on self-regulation should be subject to a wider debate.
The member organisations of the Media Advocacy Coalition reiterate our readiness to provide free legal assistance to media organisations in case of rights violations.
