2 May 2025 | Americas, Honduras, Mexico, News and features
This article was commissioned and first published by The Conversation – the news, science and arts website written entirely by academics. You can read the original version here.
Humberto Padgett was reporting on the effects of drought in Cuitzeo, a rural area of central Mexico, when his car was intercepted by armed men on September 13 2024. They threatened him and stole the car, his identity papers and work equipment, including two bullet-proof jackets.
Padgett, a Mexican investigative journalist and author, was reporting on Mexico’s growing environmental worries for national talk radio station Radio Fórmula. It proved to be his last assignment for the station. Two days later, he tweeted:
“Today I’m leaving journalism indefinitely. The losses I’ve suffered, the harassment and threats my family and I have endured, and the neglect I’ve faced have forced me to give up after 26 years of work. Thank you and good luck.”
Padgett made this decision despite the fact he, like many other journalists in Mexico, has been enrolled in a government protection scheme for years – the Protection Mechanism for Journalists and Human Rights Defenders, set up in 2012. Several other Latin American countries have similar protection programmes, including Honduras since 2015.
These programmes offer journalists measures such as panic buttons and emergency phone alerts, police or private security patrols, and security cameras and alarm systems for their homes and offices. Some are provided with bodyguards – at times, Padgett has received 24-hour protection.
In Honduras, reporter Wendy Funes, founder of the online news site RI, was given a police bodyguard after being threatened while covering an extortion trial that linked the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), an international criminal gang, with the Honduran government of former president Juan Orlando Hernández, who is now serving a 45-year prison sentence in the US for drug trafficking and arms offences.
Yet even once journalists are enrolled in these government protection schemes, the attacks and threats continue. Shockingly, many come from state employees who, in both Mexico and Honduras, are thought to be responsible for almost half of all attacks on journalists. But the prospect of punishment is remote: at least 90% of attacks on journalists go unprosecuted and unpunished, meaning there is little deterrent for committing these crimes.
Both Mexico and Honduras currently have leftwing governments which have promised to protect journalists, following a long history of crimes against media professionals in both countries. Yet the risk to journalists posed by the state has worsened in recent years amid increasing use of spyware, online smear campaigns, and rising levels of anti-media rhetoric.
Journalists perceived as critical of the leadership are regularly accused of being corrupt, in the pay of foreign governments, and putting out fake news. Donald Trump’s vocal criticism of mainstream media since returning to power in the US is likely to have encouraged this anti-media hostility in Mexico and Honduras, as elsewhere in the world.
Many journalists there have developed strategies for self-protection, including setting up NGOs that support colleagues at risk. But while they are doing journalism in ways that make reporting safer, their work has been further threatened by the abrupt suspension of USAID and other US grants, which is heightening the dangers faced by journalists in Latin America and around the world.
Threats from the state
When I tell people about my research into how journalists in Latin America deal with the relentless violence and impunity, their first question is usually: “Oh, you mean drug cartels?” And indeed, both Padgett and Funes have received death threats for their investigations into cartels and other organised crime groups.
Padgett was once sent an unsolicited photo of a dismembered body in a morgue. He was beaten and kicked in the head by armed men who threatened to kill him and his family while he was reporting on drug dealing on a university campus in Mexico City in 2017. He wears a bullet-proof jacket – or did until it was stolen – and keeps his home address a closely guarded secret.
But cartels and gangs are only part of the story when it comes to anti-press violence and impunity in these countries. In many ways, the bigger story is the threat from the state. This has been a constant despite changes in government, whether right or left wing.
My research project and resulting book were inspired by my work providing advocacy, practical and moral support for journalists at risk in Latin America for an international NGO between 2007 and 2016. The extent of the risk posed by state agents – acting alone or in cahoots with organised crime groups – is clear from the many journalists I’ve spoken to in both Mexico and Honduras.
I first interviewed these reporters, and the organisations that assist them, in 2018, then again in 2022-23 (89 interviews in total), to chart how journalists struggle for protection and justice from the state in the face of growing challenges at both domestic and international level.
For both Padgett and Funes, the intimidation, threats and attacks from organised crime groups often followed them reporting on state agents and their alleged links with such groups. Organised crime groups have deeply infiltrated the fabric of society in many parts of Mexico and Honduras – including politics, state institutions, justice and law enforcement, particularly at a local level.
In Padgett’s case, the suspected cartel threats came after he published a book and investigation into links between state governments and drug cartels, including drug money for political campaigns in Tamaulipas and a surge in cartel-related violence in Morelos under a certain local administration.
Padgett had first joined the federal protection mechanism after he was attacked by police when filming a raid in central Mexico City in 2016. The police confiscated his phone and arrested him.
He was later assigned an around-the-clock bodyguard after the Mexico City prosecutor’s office made available his contact details and his risk assessment and protection plan – produced by the state programme that was supposed to safeguard him – for inclusion in the court file on the 2017 attack on him at the university. This meant the criminals behind the attack had full access to this information.
Being part of this protection programme did not stop the threats by state employees. In April 2024, while trying to report from the scene of the murder of a local mayoral candidate in Guanajuato state, Padgett was punched in the face by a police officer from the state prosecutor’s office, who also smashed his glasses and deleted his photos.
Years earlier, he had been subjected to a protracted legal battle by former Mexico state governor and presidential candidate Eruviel Ávila Villegas, who sued Padgett for “moral damages” to the tune of more than half a million US dollars. His offence? A 2017 profile which mentioned that the politician had attended parties where a bishop had sexually abused male minors.
Padgett eventually won the case – but only on appeal, thanks to a pro bono legal team, after 18 months of stress and travelling to attend the hearings. This is a part of a growing trend of “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (Slapps) in Mexico and Latin America, aimed at silencing journalists and other critical voices.
As Padgett put it: “[Even] once we manage to win, there are no consequences for the politicians who call us to a trial without merit – no consequences at all. Eruviel Ávila is still a senator for the PRI [Institutional Revolutionary Party]” – and he was not even liable for costs.
Mexico’s federal government and army have also carried out illegal surveillance of the mobile phones of journalists and human rights defenders investigating federal government corruption and serious human rights violations on multiple occasions, including by using Pegasus spyware.
In Honduras, Funes is no stranger to state harassment either. In 2011, she was among around 100 journalists, many of them women, who were teargassed and beaten with truncheons by officers of the presidential guard and the national police during a peaceful protest against journalist murders.
In recent years, according to Funes, she and her team at RI have been targeted by cyberattacks and orchestrated smear campaigns on social media that have sought to tar them as being corrupt or associated with criminal gangs. She suspects the army is behind some of these attacks since RI has written in favour of demilitarising the police. Several RI team members have been stopped at army checkpoints; when they have denounced this on TikTok or Facebook, they have been flooded by negative comments.
RI has also been attacked by government supporters unhappy with its critical coverage of the Honduras president Xiomara Castro’s leftwing administration. In August 2024, Funes was threatened with prosecution by the governor of Choluteca, southern Honduras, over RI’s investigation into alleged involvement by local government officials in migrant trafficking. And earlier in 2025, Funes and a human rights activist were subjected to misogynistic and sexist diatribes and threats by the head of customs for the same regional department, for demanding justice for a murdered environmental defender.
Almost half of all attacks on journalists in Mexico and Honduras are attributable to state agents, particularly at the local level. In Mexico, the NGO Article 19 has attributed 46% of all such assaults over the last decade to state agents including officials, civil servants and the armed forces.
In Honduras, according to the Committee for Free Expression (C-Libre), 45% of attacks on journalists in the first quarter of 2024 were attributed to state agents, up from 41% in 2021. These include the national police, the Military Public Order Police, officials and members of the government.
Impunity is a fact of life
One key reason for the failure of the journalist protection schemes in Mexico and Honduras is they lack the power to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the attacks that caused the journalists to enter the programmes in the first place.
Padgett is yet to see justice, either for the attack on him by drug dealers at the university campus almost eight years ago or the results of the official investigation into the Mexico City prosecutor office’s apparent leaking of his contact details to the assailants. When he asked the prosecutor’s office for an update on its investigation in June 2024, he was told it had been closed two years earlier. His request for a copy of the file was denied.
When he went to the office to ask why, he was detained by police officers. “This is justice in Mexico City,” he said in a video he filmed during his arrest, adding:
“Drug dealing is allowed. My personal data is leaked to the organised crime [group] that threatened to kill me and my family. Then the matter is shelved. I come to ask for my file and instead of giving it to me, they take me to court. That is the reality today.”
Padgett lodged a complaint and, following “a tortuous judicial process”, eventually managed to get the investigation re-opened. But he says he has lost hope in the process and the justice system in general. Even something as simple as filing a report on the theft of his bullet-proof jacket during the armed attack in September 2024 has proved beyond the official responsible for the task, so the protection programme has not replaced it.
Funes says she reported one of the cyber-attacks on RI to the special prosecutor established by Honduras in 2018 to investigate crimes against journalists and human rights defenders. Funes provided the name and mobile phone number used by the hacker. However, she said the case was later closed for “lack of merit”.
Previously, the official investigation into the 2011 attack on her and other women journalists had also been quietly shelved after the evidence was “lost”. Funes says this put her off reporting subsequent incidents to the authorities:
“What for? I just want them to protect me … why waste my time? Really, you get used to impunity, you normalise it.”
There have been a few important advances in Mexico in recent years, including the successful prosecution of some of those behind the 2017 murder of two high-profile journalists, Javier Valdez and Miroslava Breach, but such cases remain the exception. Around 90% of attacks on journalists still go unprosecuted and unpunished by the state in both Mexico and Honduras, meaning there is little deterrent against these crimes.
Safer, better ways of working
Many of the journalists I have interviewed prioritise covering under-reported issues relating to human rights and democracy, corruption, violence and impunity. They use in-depth, investigative journalism to try to reveal the truth about what is happening in their countries – which is often obscured by the failings and corruption of the justice system and rule of law.
Many are developing safer, better ways of working, with three strategies having grown noticeably in recent years: building collaborations, seeking international support, and professionalising their ways of working.
Journalists from different media outlets often overcome professional rivalries to collaborate on sensitive and dangerous stories. In Mexico, members of some journalists’ collectives and networks alert each other of security risks on the ground, share and corroborate information, and monitor their members during risky assignments. Others travel as a group – when investigating the mass graves used by drug cartels, for example.
In Mexico and increasingly in Honduras, they publish controversial stories, such as on serious human rights violations involving the state, in more than one outlet simultaneously to reduce the chance of individual journalists being targeted in reprisal. Such collaborations build trust, solidarity and mutual support among reporters and editors – something that has traditionally been lacking in both countries.
Increasingly, international media partners also play an important role regarding the safety of Mexican and Honduran journalists and amplifying public awareness of the issues they report on – encouraging the mainstream media in their own countries to take notice and increasing pressure on their governments to act.
According to Jennifer Ávila, director of the Honduran investigative journalism platform ContraCorriente, transnational collaborations are a “super-important protection mechanism” because they give journalists access to external editors and legal assistance – as well as help leaving the country if necessary.
International partners also bring increased resources. In Mexico and Honduras, as in other Latin American countries, the main source of funding is government advertising and other state financial incentives. But these come with expectations about influence over editorial policies and content, so are not an option for most independent outlets. Private advertising is also challenging for these and other reasons. So, most independent media outlets and journalistic projects are heavily dependent on US and European donors such as the National Endowment for Democracy (Ned), Ford Foundation and Open Society Foundations.
Much of Latin America has high levels of media concentration, with the mainstream media typically being owned by a handful of wealthy individuals or families with wider business interests – and close economic and political links to politicians and the state. Combined with the strings of government advertising, this often results in “soft” censorship of the content that these outlets publish. Some journalists are escaping this either by setting up their own media digital outlets, like Funes, or by going freelance – as Padgett has decided to do following the attack on him in Cuitzeo in 2024.
At the same time, there has been a widespread raising of standards through increased training in techniques such as journalistic ethics, making freedom of information requests, digital and investigative journalism, and covering elections. This all helps to promote “journalistic security” – using information as a “shield in such a way that no one can deny what you’re saying”, according to Daniela Pastrana of the NGO Journalists on the Ground (PdP). It also helps counter the perception – and in some cases, reality – of longstanding corruption in parts of the profession.
Hostile environment puts progress at risk
Despite the promise of transforming journalism through increasing collaboration, professionalisation and international support, the current outlook for journalists in Mexico and Honduras – and other countries in Latin America – is not encouraging. Hostile government rhetoric against independent reporters and media outlets is on the rise, despite the presidents of both Mexico and Honduras having pledged to protect journalists and freedom of expression.
In Honduras, the hostile rhetoric towards journalists is growing in the run-up to the presidential elections in November. According to Funes: “There is a violent public discourse from the government which is repeated by officials [and] prepares the ground for worse attacks on the press … This is dangerous.”
In both countries, such attitudes at the top are often replicated by local politicians and citizens, including online, with the threat of violent discourse leading to physical violence. This hostility appears likely to grow given the example of Donald Trump’s aggressive and litigious attitude towards journalists and the media in the United States.
Indeed, the policies of the second Trump administration are already jeopardising progress made in terms of transforming journalism in Mexico and Honduras. In late January 2025, the US government suspended international aid and shuttered USAID, amid unsubstantiated accusations of fraud and corruption.
According to the press freedom group Reporters Without Borders, the USAID freeze included more than US$268m (£216m) that had been allocated to support “independent media and the free flow of information” in 2025.
USAID has been a key funder of organisations such as the nonprofits Internews and Freedom House, which in turn have been vital to the development of independent and investigative journalism in Latin America through their support of new media outlets, journalistic projects and media freedom groups. Another important donor, Ned – a bipartisan nonprofit organisation largely funded by the US Congress – has had its funding frozen.
Uncertainty about future funding has led to the immediate suspension of operations and layoffs by many nonprofit media organisations in Mexico, Honduras and across the region. While this seismic shift in the Latin American media landscape reinforces the urgent need to diversify its sources of funding, there is no doubt that in the short and even medium term, it has dealt a serious blow to the development of free and independent journalism and the safety of all journalists.
In a region of increasingly authoritarian leaders, it is now a lot harder to hold them accountable for corruption, human rights violations, impunity and other abuses.
International impotence
Anti-press violence and impunity are global problems, with more than 1,700 journalists killed worldwide between 2006 and 2024 – around 85% of which went unpunished, according to Unesco.
Although international organisations, protection mechanisms and pressure can be important tools in the fight against anti-press violence and impunity, they are ultimately limited in impact due to their reliance on the state to comply. Some journalists in Mexico and Honduras suggest the impact of such international attention can even be counter-productive, due to their governments’ increasing hostility toward any criticism by international organisations, journalists and other perceived opponents.
Twenty years ago, Lydia Cacho, a renowned journalist and women’s rights activist, was arbitrarily detained and tortured in Puebla state, east-central Mexico, after publishing a book exposing a corruption and child sexual exploitation network involving authorities and well-known businessmen. Unable to get redress for her torture through the Mexican justice system, Cacho eventually took her case to the United Nations.
Finally, in 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that her rights had been violated and ordered the Mexican state to re-open the investigation into the attack, and to give her adequate compensation. This judgment has led to several arrests of state agents in Puebla, including a former governor and chief of the judicial police and several police officers, as well as a public apology from the federal government.
But cases like Cacho’s are the exception. Securing rulings from international bodies requires resources and energy, the help of NGOs or lawyers – and can take years. What’s more, enforcement of international decisions relies on the state to comply.
While international pressure was key to persuading the Mexican and Honduran states to set up their government protection schemes for journalists and specialised prosecutors to investigate attacks against them, these institutions have generally proved ineffective.
Resourcing is always an issue: typically, protection mechanisms and prosecutors’ offices are underfunded and the staff are poorly trained. Some bodies have limited mandates, such as protection mechanisms that lack the power to investigate attacks on journalists. Sometimes, these failings are believed to be deliberate. According to Padgett, the Mexican journalist protection scheme has “political biases against those whom officials consider to be hostile to the regime”.
Indeed, many journalists and support groups suspect the Mexican and Honduran governments don’t really want these institutions to work. As the pro-democracy judge Guillermo López Lone commented about the repeated failure to secure convictions for crimes against journalists and human rights defenders in Honduras: “These are international commitments [made] due to pressure, but there is no political will.”
López Lone, who was illegally removed from his position after the 2009 coup in Honduras and only reinstated as a judge after a years-long struggle, including a ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, alleged that these institutions “play a merely formal role” in Honduras, because they have been “captured by the political interests of the current rulers, and by criminal networks”.
Similarly, according to Sara Mendiola, director of Mexico City-based NGO Propuesta Cívica, it’s not enough to talk about a lack of resources or training: “Even if you doubled the [state] prosecutors’ offices’ budgets, you’d still have the same impunity because the structures [that generate impunity] remain.”
Activism is a risky business
It’s clear that in both Mexico and Honduras, despite the governments’ stated commitment to freedom of expression, there is a deep-seated ambivalence about how important or desirable it is to protect journalists and media freedom.
The heart of this issue is the contradiction of the state as both protector and perpetrator – a state that does not want to, or is incapable of, constraining or investigating itself and its allies. This in turn is linked to longstanding structural problems of corruption, impunity and human rights violations, and a legacy of controlling the media dating to pre-democracy days.
Activism by journalists against this situation – another form of self-protection – takes various forms, including public protests and advocacy, and working for and setting up NGOs that support colleagues at risk. Increasingly, activism also involves the coming together of those who are the victims of violence.
In Mexico City, groups of journalists displaced from their homes by threats and attacks, many of whom end up without a job or income, have formed collectives and networks to provide mutual support and assist colleagues in similar circumstances. In Veracruz state, the Network in Memory of and Struggle for Killed and Disappeared Journalists was formed by the relatives of the many such journalists in 2022.
But activism is a risky business in Mexico and Honduras, opening journalists and their loved ones up to further repression and attacks by the state – and sometimes raising questions about their impartiality and credibility. While many journalists have taken part in activism out of necessity or desperation, in both countries their main source of optimism in the face of violence and impunity is journalism itself.
Journalism as the solution
Fortunately, journalists like Padgett don’t give up easily. After an eight-month hiatus following the attack in Cuitzeo and its aftermath, he now feels ready to go back to reporting.
Although he succeeded in getting the shelved investigation into the 2017 attack on him and subsequent data leak reopened, the lack of any action since means he’s decided to draw a line under this labyrinthine process. He is now looking for “alternative means of justice to compensate for the impunity”.
As a part of the reparations, he has been promised a formal apology from the Mexico City Prosecutor’s Office (similar to the apology received by Cacho). Such a ceremony is not justice and may largely be symbolic, but Padgett feels it will allow him to move on and focus on journalism again – this time as a freelancer. He is keen to make the point that Mexico remains “an extraordinary place to be a reporter”.
Despite the lack of state protection and all the other challenges, journalists like Padgett and Funes are determined to keep going – investigating their countries’ ills, probing the root causes, transforming their profession. Their commitment offers a ray of hope for the emergence of a truly free and independent media in Mexico, Honduras and beyond.
Tamsin Mitchell’s new book, Human Rights, Impunity and Anti-Press Violence: How Journalists Survive and Resist, is published by Routledge.
8 Jan 2025 | Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Syria
For more than five decades, Syria has lived under a repressive regime that has made freedom of expression a distant dream. Under Bashar al-Assad, expression was curtailed by repressive laws and strict censorship, while the security services were used as a tool to silence dissenting voices. With the Syrian revolution in 2011, a new age of free expression seemed to be emerging, but it quickly collided with security, political, and social challenges. Now that the Assad regime has been overthrown, what does this mean for the future of free expression in the country?
Freedom of expression under Assad
There were many forces at play within Assad’s regime that were used to silence those critical of the government and stop dissent.
The first were repressive laws. Throughout the decades of the Assad family’s rule, laws were designed to serve the security services and ensure the political domination of society.
The emergency law, which remained in place from 1963 to 2011, gave the security services unlimited powers to prosecute dissidents and protesters and restrict freedoms. Assad lifted the law following Syria’s Arab Spring protests, though opposition politicians called this move “useless” without reform of the legal system and accountability for security services. The 2001 Publications Law, which tightly censored the press, banned the emergence of any independent media voices. This was later repealed and replaced with a Media Law in 2011, but this still placed restrictions on journalists, including that freedom of expression should be “exercised responsibly and with consideration”. More recently, the cybercrime law in 2022 was used to silence dissenting voices online, and has made public criticism of the regime a crime punishable by imprisonment.
In this context, writer, dissident and former political detainee Fayez Sarah told Index: “The policies of the Assad regime pushed me and many activists to confront [them], as muzzling voices and preventing political and civil activities motivated me to engage in political and social work.” Sarah said he had been arrested several times simply for participating in opposition political activities.
The second tool used was that of the “official” media, which became the regime’s only voice. The official media was focused on perpetuating the public image of Assad’s regime, and presenting his version of events without space for other opinions. All mass media TV channels and newspapers were under direct control of the state, which ensured the promotion of the regime’s ideology and the obscuration of truth.
Journalist and writer Ali Safar recalled that while working for a state media organisation, creativity was rejected, and security reports suppressed any attempt to deviate from the official line.
The third oppressive weapon was direct repression against activists and journalists. Syria is one of the most dangerous countries for journalists, having witnessed unprecedented levels of violence towards media workers over the past few years. According to Reporters Without Borders, Syria has lagged behind in the Global Press Freedom Index, consistently ranking amongst the 10 worst countries since the outbreak of the Syrian revolution in 2011.
Under the Assad regime, journalists were subjected to arbitrary arrests, torture, and enforced disappearances. In areas of armed opposition, despite there being space for independent media, journalists have also been threatened and kidnapped by some factions who saw media coverage as a threat to their interests.
As journalist Sakhr Idris told Index: “Even in liberated areas, journalists faced challenges such as the intervention of military factions and pressure from funders or local communities.”
At least 300 journalists were killed whilst covering the civil war, whilst others lived in exile or under constant threat. Thousands of people have been threatened, arrested and forcibly disappeared. Muhannad Omar has been forcibly disappeared since 2012. His fate is currently unknown but there are fears that he was tortured and killed in detention in prison.
The Impact of the Syrian revolution on freedom of expression
With the outbreak of the Syrian revolution, social media platforms began to play a crucial role in breaking the regime’s monopoly on the media.
Activists have used platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to convey the truth to the world, and expose the regime’s abuses.
Citizen media began to emerge as an alternative to official media, with on-the-ground journalists relying on simple technology to circulate coverage of demonstrations and violations.
But despite a promising start, freedom of expression has faced numerous challenges as the conflict morphed into an all-out war. The regime’s repression continued in new forms, including through digital smear campaigns and intensive surveillance.
In areas outside of the regime’s control, armed factions also began to impose their own visions, limiting press freedom.
The takeover of the Syrian State Television building
After the fall of the Syrian regime on 8 December, concerns emerged about the future of the official media as new forces started to dominate the media landscape. One such case was the takeover of the Syrian State Television building in Damascus, raising widespread concern that the official media could turn from a tool to serve the regime into a platform that promotes the vision of dominant rebel groups.
For example, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the group which led the deposition of Assad, is known for its directed political and religious rhetoric, and may use state television to spread its ideology and strengthen its influence over public opinion in Syria.
The move also raises questions about the fate of free and pluralistic media in a post-Assad Syria, especially with the country’s record of restricting press freedom, suppressing independent journalists, and directing the media to serve its political and religious goals.
There is also a risk that media domination will be used to expand repression, leaving Syria stuck in the cycle of media tyranny under different names and parties.
These concerns highlight the greater challenge of ensuring the independence of the official media in this transitional period and putting in place laws to protect it from political or ideological influences that may divert it from its true role as a platform for all Syrians.
Future challenges to freedom of expression after Assad
One major obstacle is the absence of an existing legal and constitutional framework to protect free expression.
Ali Safar, a Syrian writer and executive producer of Radio Sout Raya, a Syrian radio station based in Istanbul, believes that “the only guarantee of freedom of expression is a sophisticated and dynamic media law that revitalises public space”.
Another challenge is existing societal conflict; the war has left deep sectarian divisions that have affected public debate and discourse.
According to Sheikh Riad Drar al-Hamood, a Syrian opposition political activist, writer and human rights activist, the traditional religious community has not helped to build an environment that respects pluralism, but rather has supported authoritarianism under the umbrella of traditional law.
However, he says the role of religious groups will be significant in future, and forward-thinking individuals within them can “form an incubator for the new society”. “The enlightened voices among the clergy can be leaders of social liberation, but unfortunately they are few,” he said. For instance, Sheikh Muhammad Rateb al-Nabulsi and the late Sheikh Jawdat Saeed were supporters of moderate thought in Syria, and called for change by peaceful means. Their influence combined to promote the values of dialogue and tolerance, which made them distinguished voices in the face of tyranny and extremism.
International actors will also have a key role to play in establishing a pluralistic media. Supporting Syria’s democratic transition depends heavily on international support, which is conditional on political reforms. A transition is needed that draws on the experiences of other countries to avoid media and political chaos.
The role of civil society organisations and activists within Syria will also be crucial. Civil society is a key hope for building a free space. According to Fayez Sarah, political and civil activism has contributed to changing the relationship between Syrians and the regime, as they have become more emboldened in expressing their opinions.
But challenges remain significant, including security threats and the stress of living under threat of prosecution.
Comparing Syria with other global experiences
The state of free expression in Syria can be compared to the experiences of other countries such as Iran and Chechnya, where societies have faced similar pressures around the suppression of dissenting voices and the use of religious or national authority to tighten control.
Even before Iran’s 1979 revolution, freedom of expression was limited under the regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, where the press and civil society were censored, and the SAVAK (the Bureau for Intelligence and Security of the State) was used to muzzle voices. While Iranians dreamed of the right to free expression after the revolution, repression has shifted in character from political to ideological.
The new Islamic regime imposed tight control on the media, as obedience to Wali al-Faqih – a doctrine that means the transfer of political and religious authority over to the Shia clergy – became a criterion for the legitimacy of media and intellectual discourse.
Although dissenting voices have emerged from within the religious establishment – such as Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri – they have been marginalised and suppressed, which is consistent with Sheikh al-Hamood’s assertion that enlightened voices in religious communities often have little impact.
Similarly to Syria, in Iran religion or nationality has been used officially to justify restricting freedoms and turning the media into a tool for official propaganda.
In Chechnya, freedom of expression has been heavily affected by armed conflicts and wars between the Russian government and separatist movements.
During the First (1994-1996) and Second (1999-2009) Chechen Wars, independent journalism was virtually wiped out. Russian authorities and local groups have used the media as a propaganda weapon against the opposition, reminiscent of the Syrian regime’s control over the media during and after the revolution.
In the post-conflict era, freedom of expression remained limited under the head of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov. Independent journalists were imprisoned and political activity was suppressed. As in Syria, armed conflicts have weakened the free media and have led to the authorities’ exploitation of nationalism and religion to justify repression.
In Iran, Chechnya and Syria, freedom of expression has been affected by volatile political phases and armed conflicts. Free expression was the first casualty of repressive regimes that used religion or nationalism as a pretext for control.
Global experiences continue to offer useful lessons for Syria in the future, as they can be leveraged to build a free media system that respects pluralism and promotes national reconciliation.
Looking to the future
The journey of freedom of expression in Syria is a reflection of the stages that the country has gone through politically and socially, from systematic repression under Assad, to limited openness during the revolution, to successive setbacks as the conflict escalated. There are many challenges to building an environment that incubates free expression post-Assad, from the need for a constitution that protects the right to confront sectarian discourse, to rebuilding trust between the media and society. But despite this, there is still hope that Syria could become a model for free expression within the region.
This article was translated and edited from Arabic by Hussein Maamo.
28 Oct 2024 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features
In the lead up to the Georgian national elections on 26 October, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and nine partner organisations in the Council of Europe’s Platform for the Safety of Journalists published the following report and recommendations to ensure the safety of journalists and the right to reliable information. Read the report below, or here.
Press Freedom and Journalist Safety in Peril, Rising Polarisation and a Climate of Fear – Findings of the Press Freedom Mission to Georgia
On 1-2 October the Partner Organisations of the Council of Europe’s Platform for the Safety of Partner organisations of the Council of Europe’s Platform for the Safety of Journalists and of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), including ARTICLE 19 Europe, Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), Index on Censorship, the International Press Institute (IPI), the Justice for Journalists Foundation, and Reporters Without Borders (RSF), conducted a fact-finding mission to Georgia. The aim of the mission was to gather information on Georgia’s implementation of its freedom of expression and media freedom commitments, including in relation to the ongoing election campaign.
This report presents the findings of the mission.
During the mission, we have witnessed the deterioration of press freedom amid rising authoritarianism. It has been made clear to us that a wide range of tools and mechanisms are used to discredit and curtail dissenting voices, including those of independent journalists.
We want to declare our full support and solidarity with the journalists, press freedom and civil society organisations. We came with concerns about media freedom, but we were appalled by what we heard.
Media situation ahead of the election
Exchanges with journalists, civil society, and political and institutional leaders bear witness to a democratic backsliding and to human rights violations that go far beyond the erosion of media pluralism and violations of press freedom. Civil society as a whole is facing an illiberal drift, characterised by a weakening of democratic checks and balances.
In the months leading up to the elections, the situation for press freedom has deteriorated rapidly in Georgia. According to the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), 38 press freedom violations were documented in Georgia in the first half of 2024. These violations included physical assaults on journalists (26.3%), attacks on property (13.2%), verbal attacks (21.1%), legal incidents (23.7%), and censorship (26.3%). Notably, nearly one-third of these incidents (31.6%) were carried out by government and public officials, while in 34.2% of cases, the perpetrators were police and state security forces.
During our mission, journalists reported operating in an extremely hostile pre-election environment, describing themselves as working “under immense pressure.” They are frequently subjected to smear campaigns, online attacks, and insults from public officials, unknown individuals, and even other media workers. Despite these challenges, most cases of violence against journalists are not effectively investigated and prosecuted.
These cases include physical assaults, threatening and insulting phone calls, and acts of vandalism targeting media offices and journalists’ belongings, including during protests against the law on ‘Transparency of Foreign Influence’. Many of those who attacked journalists during the demonstrations in June 2019 and July 2021 have yet to be held accountable. This cycle of impunity is driving some journalists to self-censor or to leave the profession altogether.
Another issue raised during our meetings was the rise of disinformation and misinformation. Stakeholders emphasised the overwhelming presence of Russian propaganda across broadcast, online, and social media platforms. They also noted the absence of political debates, which further exacerbates media polarisation as the country gears up for crucial elections. Public officials have been boycotting government-critical and independent media, while government-aligned outlets, or those owned by government officials, refuse to invite opposition leaders to political programs and talk shows.
The Mission is concerned by a series of fines levied on pro-opposition television channels by the broadcast regulator, the Communications Commission (ComCom), over the channels’ refusal to air ruling ‘Georgian Dream – Democratic Georgia’ party advertisements that they deem to contain hate speech and other demeaning content. Stakeholders’ concerns with these sanctions echo long-held concerns over ComCom’s insufficient independence from the government and application of punitive fines raised by critical broadcasters as well as the Council of Europe. Although ComCom has also fined pro-government broadcasters for subsequently refusing to air opposition party advertising, disparities in revenue between pro-government and critical channels mean the issue has once again brought to the fore widespread stakeholder dissatisfaction with Georgia’s broadcast regulatory framework. During a meeting with the Mission, ComCom denied accusations of a lack of independence[1] and stated that it was simply applying Georgian law[2].
In response to these pressing challenges, including the law on ‘Transparency of Foreign Influence’, some media outlets have opted to register new organisations abroad, preparing for potential exile in the future if necessary. Others, however, believe relocation is not a solution and are focusing their resources on thoroughly covering the upcoming election and pre-election campaign.
Concerns over recent legislation
The law on ‘Transparency of Foreign Influence’, which was adopted last May and entered into force in August, threatens the very existence of independent media and civil society organisations in Georgia, according to representatives of journalists’ organisations, media and civil society alike. The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe declared the law incompatible with international and European standards on freedom of expression, freedom of association and privacy. The law obliges non-commercial legal entities to register as “organisations pursuing the interests of a foreign power” if they receive at least 20 percent of their funding from abroad. The law stigmatises foreign-funded organisations and discriminates between them and organisations only funded by domestic (i.e., Georgian) donors. The approach introduced by this law disregards the stigmatising impact of labelling civil society organisations, online media, and broadcasters, which inherently limits their activities from the beginning. This erodes their public trust and hinders their access to financial resources. Due to the vague wording of the law, Georgian media representatives fear they might be required to register even if they do not receive monetary payments, but also on other grounds, such as receiving free content from foreign media organisations.
Media outlets as a whole decided not to register, but many of them will not be able to pay the fines, which range from 5000 (approximately 1,700 EUR) to 25000 GEL (approximately 8,300 EUR) and can be levied repeatedly.
The law additionally grants the Ministry of Justice extensive powers to investigate the foreign-funded organisations based on mere allegations of foreign ties. The Ministry can request personal information and interfere with the operations of independent media and civil society organisations. Moreover, amendments introduced during the third reading of the bill allow the issuing of monetary fines against organisations and individuals for failing to submit requested data, including personal and confidential information, despite earlier promises that the law would not affect individuals.
The Ministry’s formal notices or sanction decisions may be appealed, but the appeal does not have suspensive effect, and the Ministry may continue to request information, levy fines, investigate the origin of funds, require media outlets to make self-declarations, and so on.
Even if the foreign influence law is not yet implemented, it already has a strong chilling effect. Some media outlets started to register their entities outside of the country this summer. Due to the high level of anxiety experienced by journalists in regard to the law, and the significant time and financial resources they have put into assessing and dealing with its effects, they find it hard to properly pursue their work, including covering the upcoming parliamentary election. Our interviewees emphasised that the law has already led to self-censorship in some newsrooms and distrust among journalists’ sources. We were informed of at least one attempt at censorship by a donor following the passage of this law, which asked a media outlet not to publish investigations on a Georgian Dream parliamentarian. International donors, for their part, recently received fewer applications by media and NGOs, who are afraid of being targeted by the law.
Moreover, the new law on ‘Family Values and the Protection of Minors’, signed by the Speaker of Parliament on 3 October, censors media outlets and prevents them from covering stories related to the LGBTQA+ community.
The law is part of a legislative package that proposes amendments to 18 existing laws, including the Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression.
The most concerning section of the law for press freedom is Article 8, which explicitly prohibits broadcasters from disseminating content that “promotes identification with a gender other than one’s biological sex or relationships between individuals of the same biological sex based on sexual orientation.” This censorship measure is an extreme attack on the right to freedom of expression in Georgia and a manifest violation of international human rights standards.
This law will prevent journalists from freely reporting on LGBTQA+ issues and giving voice to the LGBTQA+ community. The fear of prosecution will inevitably create a chilling effect and lead to self-censorship.
Both the law on ‘Transparency of Foreign Influence’ and the law on ‘Family Values and the Protection of Minors’ are perceived as tools of the executive and the ruling party for exerting pressure on the media. When questioned about this, a representative from the ruling Georgian Dream party did not fully address our concerns.
Safety of Journalists: a feeling of fear and exodus from the profession
Our meetings with stakeholders reinforced a picture that has already been raised by previous reports. Journalists in Georgia are attacked physically, verbally, legally and financially. Journalism has become a dangerous occupation in the country. Georgia is ranked 103rd out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2024 World Press Freedom Index after falling 26 places, the biggest fall registered by any country in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
Journalists are concerned about their safety to such a degree that some of them take chaperones on journalistic assignments. Representatives of several outlets noted that journalists leave the industry due to safety concerns. Additionally, several media outlets reported that they were making arrangements to register their media abroad.
Besides physical assaults on journalists, numerous cases of intimidation were reported to the Mission. Threats, short-term detention, and targeted smear campaigns in social media and government-controlled TV channels were reported by journalists themselves and by media rights organisations.
All interlocutors complained about polarisation of the media sphere, fuelled by high-ranking officials and public figures. The interlocutors were also concerned about misuse of national sentiments by naming journalists and media outlets ‘anti-Georgian’, and about the attempt to discredit them by labelling them as ‘UNM’ – an opposition party that the current Prime Minister promised to ban after the election – as if they were defending this party’s interests. The lack of political debates between opposing parties exacerbates this division.
Impunity for crimes and intimidation against journalists
If media representatives cited violence and intimidation of journalists alongside the foreign influence law as the biggest threat to media freedom in Georgia, impunity for attacks on journalists was frequently raised as the main reason for journalists’ lack of safety. Physical assaults, threats, and other acts of intimidation against journalists frequently go unprosecuted, and when they are prosecuted, penalties are generally too light to have a deterrent effect. Investigations into crimes against journalists are notoriously slow, often failing to reach a conclusion. While the absence of comprehensive official statistics on attacks against media workers – itself a failing that needs to be remedied – makes it difficult to obtain a precise overview, evidence shared with the Mission by media rights advocates supports concerns cited in a recent Council of Europe Technical Paper that investigations into crimes against journalists are not “prompt, [and] effective.”[3] This state of affairs sends a signal that authorities do not see attacks on the media as important; in fact, many media representatives believe it is part of a deliberate strategy to condone and incite such violence. Perceived impunity for violence and intimidation against journalists likely plays the key role in encouraging further attacks.
One case commonly raised by respondents is the July 2021 attacks on more than 50 journalists by a crowd protesting a planned LGBTQA+Pride event. Although, amid significant international interest in the case, more than two dozen perpetrators were relatively quickly convicted, many perpetrators, including alleged organisers of the violence, were not prosecuted, despite the availability of video evidence, which was passed to investigators by Georgia’s Public Defender (Ombudsman). Nor were law enforcement investigated for apparent negligence in failing to prevent or intervene in the violence. Sentences, such as those – reduced to four years on appeal – given to six individuals who brutally beat TV Pirveli cameraman Aleksandre Lashkarava, who was subsequently found dead in his home days after being released from hospital, are widely perceived as too lenient.
A related issue is the failure to call to account politicians and state officials whose rhetoric is seen as inciting, condoning, or inspiring violence against the media. In one shocking recent example, a ruling party MP publicly celebrated a mass campaign of intimidation against media outlets and NGOs that included threatening calls, intimidating posters and beatings. The MP appeared to admit to being behind the campaign and threatened further reprisals against two news outlets. No action was taken against this MP and it appears that no effective investigation into the intimidation campaign has been undertaken.
In order to tackle the issue of impunity, politicians and officials should, at a minimum, refrain from incendiary rhetoric against the press and instead commit to condemning all incidents of violence and intimidation against journalists.
Respondents pointed to several institutional and legislative weaknesses lying behind the problem of impunity, some of which would be comparatively easy to fix. The Special Investigation Service (SIS) – which is tasked with investigating incidents under Article 154 of the criminal code (unlawful interference with a journalist’s activities) as well as alleged crimes against a journalist by law enforcement officials – is reported to be overburdened by an excessively wide range of other duties and severely under-resourced. As a result, SIS investigations often drag on for years without resolution. Georgia’s Public Defender (Ombudsman), which is supposed to monitor compliance with human rights, is not permitted to access case files until the drawn-out investigation process is complete, adding to a lack of accountability.
Article 154 itself is observed to be too narrow in scope and wording, failing to include instances of violence and threats committed against journalists when they are not working, but which may be related to their journalistic activity, and leaving grey areas that result in under-application. Police and prosecutors, who take on cases that fall outside the scope of Article 154 or take over SIS investigations, lack necessary training in the specificity of cases involving journalists and their wider democratic importance. Detailed official statistics of attacks on journalists are only provided by the SIS about crimes under its remit, and while other agencies, such the General Prosecutor’s Office, do provide some information about other crimes committed against journalists, no unified and comprehensive data on attacks on journalists exist, rendering a full evaluation of the problem impossible, despite widespread recognition of the issue’s seriousness. Moreover, in spite of a 2021 pledge to do so and the urgency of the need, authorities have yet to devise a specific action plan for the safety of journalists.
Public Service Media
During our meetings, interlocutors repeatedly raised concerns about the independence of the public service media, accusing the Georgian Public Broadcaster (GPB) of being under the political influence of the ruling party. Interlocutors have also regretted the absence of genuine political debate on TV ahead of the parliamentary elections, GPB has since broadcast a debate on 21 October[4].
The public broadcaster strongly rejected these criticisms, attributing them to the polarised political environment. The leadership of the GPB also referred to the unwillingness of political parties to participate in such debates and to the pressure on the public broadcaster from both the opposition and the ruling party.
We call on the Georgian authorities to take action to ensure full editorial and financial independence and sustainability of the public broadcaster.
During the meetings a general concern was expressed that there is an acute need for debates between the ruling party and the main opponents, due to the high level of polarisation in society, the confrontational tone of the campaign, and the current absence of political dialogue, depriving the voters of the opportunity to make an informed choice.
Last year legislation changing the public broadcaster’s funding rule was rushed through the Parliament without prior public consultations and no prior expert assessment. GPB’s funding was reduced by amendments to the Broadcasting Law and the funding mechanism of the GPB changed, from a fixed percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) to an annual allocation in the state budget, making it more difficult for the GPB funding to keep pace with rising inflation. Public Service Media in Georgia needs stable and predictable funding, which safeguards its independence.
Despite modernisation of programmes and content, GPB has limited viewership, ranking fourth among broadcasters in the country. According to European Broadcasting Union (EBU) research, public service media funding in Georgia compared with other EBU members is already in the lowest third among 112 member organisations in over 50 countries. The 2023 EBU Funding Report underlines the alarming situation in Georgia, where the average public service media funding per capita is a mere 4 EUR, compared to the European average of 45 EUR[5].
SLAPPs/Lawsuits against media
Interlocutors reported that lawsuits concerning defamation against media are used as a tool by high-ranking politicians and businesspeople affiliated with the ruling party, less by private actors. The Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) in 2023 confirmed that in Georgia, ‘most lawsuits are brought by politicians [and] high-ranking officials or affiliated persons against the media’. Since 2021, 38 out of 42 defamation cases labelled as SLAPPs by a local NGO Georgian Democracy Initiative have been directed at three media organisations with ties to the opposition—Mtavari Arkhi, TV Pirveli, and Formula—or their affiliated journalists. While it is difficult to determine the exact number of SLAPPs in Georgia, local civil society considers whether the claimant attempted to use self-regulatory tools before filing a lawsuit as one of the key factors in identifying a case as a SLAPP.
Concerns about the lack of independence of the judicial system amplify concerns about these cases. Interlocutors reported that Georgian courts have often permitted claimants to sue both media groups and individual journalists, even though Georgian law clearly specifies that in defamation cases related to a journalist’s work, the media outlet’s owner should be the defendant. At the same time, in order to prove their innocence journalists are indirectly pressured to reveal their sources.
Journalists in exile
During the mission, it was observed that Georgia, previously regarded as a safe haven for journalists seeking an escape from their repressive countries, is losing this status amid a decline in freedoms. Exiled journalists from Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan and Armenia have been barred from entering Georgia without any explanation. Among journalists who recently were banned from entering Georgia are Belarusian journalist Andrei Mialeshka and Armenian journalist Arsen Kharatyan.
A particularly alarming case is the arrest of Afgan Sadygov, an Azerbaijani journalist living in Georgia, and the request for his extradition to Azerbaijan. Authorities in Azerbaijan have charged Sadygov with extortion under threat of publishing negative information. Sadygov has faced severe repression in Azerbaijan and was previously jailed in his home country. During the mission, Platform partners met with his wife, who voiced deep concerns for her husband’s safety, as well as her own safety and that of their children.
Another case demonstrating the extreme measures Azerbaijani authorities seem willing to take to retaliate against independent journalists in Georgia is that of Afgan Mukhtarli. In 2017, Mukhtarli, an Azerbaijani journalist and activist who found shelter in Georgia after persecution in Azerbaijan, was kidnapped from the country’s capital, forcibly returned to Azerbaijan, and sentenced to six years in prison. Exiled Azerbaijani journalists, many of whom have fled Azerbaijan’s ongoing media crackdown, have reported increasing insecurity in Georgia in recent years, including beatings and surveillance.
Georgia has consistently denied entry to Russian journalists, with at least a dozen incidents since 2022 involving reporters from independent Russian media outlets like Dozhd TV, Meduza, Holod, and Mediazona.
As for Georgian journalists, due to their fears of the enforcement of the law on ‘Transparency of Foreign Influence’., some are considering moving their operations abroad and are preparing for potential work in exile, as they refuse to register as “organisations pursuing the interests of a foreign power”. Among the countries which are considered as possible locations for exile are the Baltic states and Armenia.
Several media organisations have already relocated some of their journalists abroad and registered their outlets internationally or allocated resources to do so. A significant challenge faced by those considering relocation is the absence of long-term plans; many are only equipped with short-term strategies. All journalists remain vigilant, anticipating that conditions may deteriorate further following the upcoming elections.
It is important to acknowledge the psychological impact of this situation. Journalists reported feeling significant stress and anxiety due to the deep uncertainty over their future work and livelihoods and whether they may have to flee to avoid repression.
Journalists’ working conditions
The particularly precarious economic and social situation of many Georgian journalists is also very worrying. The Independent Association of Georgian Journalists (IAGJ) estimates that 80% of journalists in all sectors (print, online and broadcast) do not have a proper employment contract.
There is no national collective agreement setting out minimum working conditions for journalists in the media sector. The public broadcaster is one of the few companies to have a company agreement, but according to IAGJ, this agreement is not always applied by GPB, when it comes to conditions of dismissal.
IAGJ believes that the situation is even worse in the private media. Many private channels controlled by politicians, such as GDS TV, do not hesitate to dismiss journalists without any compensation. These illegal social practices are generally not followed up by the courts, given the lack of independence of the judiciary.
Journalists do not have a specific trade union to represent them and attempts to set one up have never been successful.
IAGJ believes that poor working conditions are mainly due to the fact that most media outlets cannot rely on a long-term sustainable funding model, which explains the absence of collective agreements at company level and at national level.
Access to Information
Freedom of Information (FOI) in Georgia is stipulated by chapter 3 of the General Administrative Code of Georgia, which has been in force since 1999. Any person can make a request for public information without citing reasons. Legal researchers and civil society organisations have repeatedly called for a comprehensive act which would take into account developments in international standards of freedom of information and practices which exist in the country. Updating the legislation on freedom of information was one of the commitments made by the government in the annual action plan for the implementation of the Association Agreement between the EU and Georgia, which was signed in 2014.
Interlocutors indicated that a law on establishing a body responsible for regulating access to information has remained a draft since 2014. However, even the existing norms of replies by public bodies to journalists’ requests within ten days are frequently not met. Reportedly, critical and investigative journalists have the most difficulty receiving replies to their requests.
New parliamentary accreditation rules were imposed last year which limit journalists’ presence in Parliament and allow accreditation to be used as a tool for curbing independent reporting. According to documents shown to the mission, in 2024 the accreditation of five journalists was temporarily suspended, so they were unable to enter the Parliament. Additionally, up to 19 journalists from online media outlets were restricted from entering the Parliament in April and May, including during the vote on the law on ‘Transparency of Foreign Influence’.. The Office of the Speaker of the Parliament reported that this year, 339 journalists have received annual accreditation at Parliament.
The European Commission’s Georgia 2023 Report, referring to the situation with access to information in the country, said the following: ‘Considerable delays and a recurring refusal to access public information pose a serious challenge for media and CSOs, affecting the timeliness, accuracy and quality of their work and reporting’.
The 2022 report on Access to Information: Public Institutions and Media, published by the Media Advocacy Coalition, a local coalition of media freedom NGOs, indicates both that state bodies do not respond to journalists’ requests for information in a timely manner and that critical journalists or media outlets with dissenting views do not receive information or receive incomplete responses under the pretext of personal data protection and the right to privacy.
The 2024 GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round Report stated that access to public information remains a problem and the situation has deteriorated in the recent years. In particular, the GRECO Report referred to inconsistent practice of issuing public information in the executive government, also noting that ‘there is a clear lack of proactive disclosure of public documents by the Executive’.
Another problem is limited access of critical journalists and media outlets to public officials; they are often not notified of official events and officials often refuse to engage with them. The interlocutors indicated that the public service broadcaster or media outlets whose coverage support the government do not invite critical analysts and journalists to their programmes.
Access to information complaints are not dealt with effectively. The Office of the Public Defender’s mandate worked on at least 100 such cases last year. However their findings have a non-binding character. The judicial oversight is riddled with lengthy procedure and violations of procedural time limits.
Recommendations
- Guarantee a safe and free working environment for journalists. Ensure that journalists can cover the pre-election period and elections without obstruction or interference.
- Ensure the end of smear and disinformation campaigns as well as verbal assaults against journalists led by high-level politicians and officials.
- Legislation impacting the media, which is not in line with international freedom of expression standards should be revised.The law on ‘Transparency of Foreign Influence’. and the Law on Protection of Family Values and Minors must be repealed.
- Ensure the proper implementation of the media legal framework, with a particular focus on the legislation regarding free access to information. Guarantee that state agencies provide requested public information to media outlets in a timely manner, as enshrined in the law. Establish relevant bodies where necessary to support and oversee the effective enforcement of these laws.
- Ensure an end to the cycle of impunity by conducting thorough investigations into all cases of attacks against journalists, including those physically assaulted during the demonstrations against the law on ‘Transparency of Foreign Influence’. in 2023 and 2024, as well as during violence in July 2021 and June 2020. Acts of vandalism of media offices and journalists’ property, as well as the unprecedented number of threatening and insulting calls journalists received, should be thoroughly investigated. Ensure efficient working of the Special Investigations Service.
- Ensure the editorial and financial independence of Georgia’s public broadcaster.
- Strengthen the capacity of the body dealing with the implementation of the Law on Free Access to Information and ensure that the Freedom of Information Act is presented to Parliament.
- Tangible steps to end polarisation must be taken, including stopping the boycott of independent and government-critical media outlets by high-level government officials and agreeing to participate in political debates.
- Ensure that foreign journalists, including those residing in Georgia, can work in a free and safe environment and are not denied access to the country.
- Take concrete actions to ensure the independence of the judiciary; put an end to using courts as a means to discredit and silence the media and dissenting voices.
- The public authorities must organise social dialogue in the media sector to enable the adoption of a sectoral collective agreement or, failing that, collective agreements at company level, in order to establish decent working conditions in the sector, and in particular to avoid any unfair dismissals without compensation.
Background
The mission comprised of representatives from the ARTICLE 19 Europe, Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), the European Broadcasting Union, the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), Index on Censorship, the International Press Institute (IPI), the Justice for Journalists Foundation, and Reporters Without Borders (RSF).
On the 1st and 2nd October 2024, the Mission met with the Chief of Staff of the Speaker of the Parliament of Georgia, the Communications Commission (the Georgian media regulator), the Office of the Public Defender of Georgia, representatives of the public service broadcaster GBP, representatives of political groups and MPs, representatives of civil society organisations, journalists and editors of broadcast, printed press and online media and representatives of the international community. The Mission requested meetings with the Ministries of Justice and Culture as well as the Legal Affairs Committee of the Parliament. The Ministries could not meet the Mission; the Chief of Staff spoke on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee.
The Partner Organisations and MFRR members held a press briefing on 2 October 2024.
The Platform for the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists is a unique mechanism which helps the dialogue between the governments and the organisations of journalists, with the aim of stopping violations to press freedom in the member states of the Council of Europe and enabling journalists to exercise their profession without the risk of compromising their safety.
Since 2015, the Platform facilitates the compilation and dissemination of information on serious concerns about media freedom and safety of journalists in Council of Europe member states, as guaranteed by Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) tracks, monitors and reacts to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries. This project provides legal and practical support, public advocacy and information to protect journalists and media workers.
[1] Notably, ComCom representatives referred to November 2023 amendments designed to increase the independence of the appointment process for ComCom commissioners. While the Mission understands that no new appointments to ComCom have been made following these changes, and it has thus not been possible for stakeholders to appraise the changes’ practical impact, interlocutors expressed doubt that they will sufficiently bolster the broadcast regulator’s independence.
[2] The rules applying to media in the election campaign are spelt out in the Election Code (Articles 50 & 51). The broadcast media regulatory body, the Communications Commission (ComCom) oversees implementation of these provisions subject to the mandatory judicial review. By law, the broadcasters must provide free and paid airtime on equal conditions to all ‘qualified electoral subjects’ and observe impartiality in election-related debates. The broadcasters must ensure that the political advertising complies with the Constitution and certain other laws.
[3] Some statistics on attacks and prosecutions are available in the annual reports of the Public Defender
(Ombudsman) of Georgia: https://www.ombudsman.ge/eng/saparlamento-angarishebi
[4] By law, all broadcasters which offer free airtime must also organise the debates. This includes the GPB, the commercial channels with nationwide reach, Adjara TV and community broadcasters.
[5] According to the EBU data, the average operating costs of the public broadcasters members of the EBU is 805.99 million EUR, while in Georgia it is a mere 16 million EUR.
26 Sep 2024 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features, United Kingdom
On Monday 16 September, the United States imposed financial sanctions and visa restrictions on Georgians who they believed to be involved with violent crackdowns on peaceful protests that had occurred in the country’s capital Tbilisi in the spring. The protests were sparked in resistance to the passing of a “foreign agents law”, which shares similarities with an existing law in Russia – raising concerns that the Georgian government is aligning more closely with the Kremlin.
These demonstrations were led by young adults. University students organised and turned out in their thousands, and the majority of protesters on the streets were members of Gen Z. It is commonplace for young people to be vocal about what they believe in, but despite the US supporting the struggle of the youth against their government in Georgia, when it comes to home soil, their commitment to free speech isn’t so steadfast. The US drew condemnation from UN human rights experts regarding the aggressive and harsh measures used by authorities against pro-Palestine protesters on US university campuses – many peaceful demonstrations were met with surveillance and arrests across the country. Further measures are being taken to prevent protests ahead of the 2024/25 academic year, and these have been met with disdain from the American Association of University Professors in a statement made last month.
The USA is far from alone when it comes to recent crackdowns on the right to protest. As Index has previously covered, there have been multiple arrests at both climate protests and pro-Palestine protests in the UK in recent years, and the Conservative government led by Rishi Sunak introduced the much criticised Policing, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the Public Order Act 2023, and Serious Disruption Prevention Orders, all of which significantly inhibit people’s right to protest. This crushing of demonstrations even breached the realms of legality when Suella Braverman was ruled to have passed unlawful anti-protest legislation in 2023. In recent times, the sheer scale of punishment for non-violent protesters in the UK has been brought into the public eye with the sentencing in July of Roger Hallam of Just Stop Oil (JSO) to five years imprisonment, and four other JSO members to four years, for coordinating protests on the M25.
Lotte Leicht, a Danish human rights lawyer who holds the position of advocacy director at Climate Rights International – a monitoring and advocacy organisation that recently put out a statement outlining hypocrisy from western governments regarding climate protests – spoke to Index on this issue, and she believes that the UK is the worst offender.
“The crackdown, and particularly the use of law to sentence non-violent disruption by climate protesters in the UK has stood out as the most severe and most extraordinary measure [from any country]. And one thing that’s very disappointing from our point of view is not to see the new Labour government tackling these draconian laws from the previous government, and taking steps to revoke them,” Leicht said.
She added: “The prevention of UK activists from explaining their motivations for their actions in court, and judges actually preventing them from doing so… As a lawyer, I would say this prevents people from having a fair trial.”
This crackdown on protests has become prevalent in many democracies within ‘the Global North’ in recent years, and examples are not hard to come by. On 11 September, thousands of anti-war protesters in Melbourne, Australia gathered outside a weapons expo, protesting the government’s stance on arms, and the use of such weapons in Gaza. The protests quickly became the subject of great scrutiny when there were violent clashes between Melbourne police and demonstrators, with police allegedly using excessive “riot-type” force, resulting in multiple injuries.
In Germany, pro-Palestine protests have also repeatedly been met with harsh measures, such as bans. The country’s history of anti-Semitism has impacted its attitude towards protests and events that are critical of Israel, causing police to be more heavy handed than in other democracies.
Leicht, who is also the council chairwoman at the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), a nonprofit dedicated to enforcing civil and human rights globally, told Index that this increasing anti-protest action from western democracies sets a very worrying precedent.
“This represents a massive deployment of double standards. Because these are the same governments that rightfully stand up for freedom of expression, association and assembly in different corners of the world when authoritarian governments are cracking down horrifically on dissent in their countries,” she said.
“These countries are usually there to say ‘Oh, that’s not good’, and we want them to do that! But by not practising what they preach and undermining these principles at home, they will lose that credibility. In a way, they will provide a green light to authoritarian governments to do the exact same for those that they don’t like. I mean, why not?”
Leicht does, however, believe that a continued struggle against these litigations will not be in vain.
“Protests in the past have also been disruptive, annoying and irritating for those in power — look at the Suffragettes. Now, is that something that we today would say ‘That’s just annoying and irritating’? Many felt so at the time. They were disruptive, they were irritating, they were strong, they were principled – and they were successful. And I think history will tell the same story about courageous climate protesters,” she said.
It is clear that countries positioning themselves as “champions of democracy” must truly allow freedom of expression within their own borders, especially when they set the tone globally. If they continue to infringe upon the rights of people to demonstrate their beliefs and advocate publicly for change, then the future will be silent.
