Georgian Deputy Justice Minister: ECHR rules state has not only right, but obligation to protect public officials from online attacks

Beka Dzamashvili, the deputy minister of justice of Georgia, on Saturday said that the European Court of Human Rights has fully upheld the government’s position in the case Miladze v. Georgia, noting that the ruling specifically validates the country's stance on the regulation of abusive online conduct.

Speaking on Imedi TV show Open Air - Debates, Dzamashvili noted that certain political actors, NGOs, and external forces have recently attempted to promote the idea that public figures must tolerate all forms of insult, profanity, humiliation, and hatred.

“Recently, we’ve seen attempts by certain political actors, NGOs, and external groups to push a flawed narrative: the idea that freedom of expression is completely absolute, especially when targeting public figures. And by public figures, I don't just mean politicians or officials; this includes athletes, clergy, and others. There has been a deliberate effort to establish the notion that if you are in the public eye, you must tolerate everything - insults, profanity, humiliation, hatred, and abuse. This is no longer about having a higher threshold of tolerance; it’s an expectation to tolerate absolutely everything”, he said.

He further highlighted that the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA), representing the applicant, had argued that public figures should tolerate all forms of conduct and that restrictions on freedom of expression should not apply to the internet.

“Step by step, this narrative was being established. This case was an attempt to secure a ruling from the international court to reinforce that approach here in Georgia - specifically, the idea that insults and abusive language are permissible, especially online. The applicant’s representative, the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, essentially argued two things: on one hand, that public figures should tolerate everything, and on the other, that freedom of expression on the internet should not be subject to any restrictions at all”, Dzamashvili noted.

“Crucially, the European Court fully shared our government’s position on this issue. The Court noted that the state not only has the right, but also an obligation, to protect public servants from such attacks so they can carry out their daily duties in a calm and secure environment”, he continued.

The official also noted that the Court agreed that cyberspace amplifies vulnerability, given that harmful content can spread rapidly to a much broader audience.

“Second, the European Court agreed with us that cyberspace and the internet make individuals even more vulnerable to rights violations, because information can spread rapidly and reach a massive audience”, Dzamashvili said.

“And third, which is highly important to emphasize, and a point the European Court agreed with, strict regulation of cyberspace is vital for protecting the rights of young people and minors. The Court fully shared our view that because children have widespread access to the internet, authorities have a clear, legitimate interest in restricting online spaces when they become saturated with hatred, insults, and abuse”, he concluded.