The European Court of Human Rights has held that Georgia did not violate Article 10 of the Convention after imposing a fine on a TikTok user who posted a profanity-laden video insulting public officials.
The applicant, Irakli Miladze, a Georgian food courier and civil activist living in Tbilisi, uploaded a short video to TikTok in December 2022 criticising the city’s urban transport reforms, which had prioritised public transport and cycling infrastructure. In the video, Mr Miladze repeatedly used highly offensive language directed at the mayor of Tbilisi, municipal staff and the police.
The video was posted publicly and quickly gained significant attention online, attracting more than 100,000 views and being shared hundreds of times.
Administrative proceedings were subsequently initiated against Mr Miladze, culminating in his conviction in May 2023 for disturbing public peace and order under Article 166 §1 of the Georgian Code of Administrative Offences. He was fined approximately €180.
The Georgian courts found that social media platforms formed part of the public sphere and could therefore constitute places where public order might be affected. They concluded that Mr Miladze’s comments amounted to gratuitous personal insults directed at identifiable public officials and did not contribute meaningfully to public debate. The courts also stressed the importance of preventing the normalisation of sexually explicit insults on social media platforms widely used by young people.
Before the European Court of Human Rights, Mr Miladze argued that his conviction violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 10. He contended that laws governing public order should not extend to online speech, that his comments did not amount to hate speech, and that users could avoid his content if they wished. He also pointed to a disclaimer warning viewers that the video contained offensive language.
The Strasbourg court accepted that the fine constituted an interference with Mr Miladze’s freedom of expression but found that the interference was lawful and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of others.
The court emphasised that the scope of a state’s margin of appreciation depends heavily on the type of expression involved. It noted the particularly aggressive and vulgar language used by the applicant, describing it as an extreme form of colloquial swearing regarded in Georgia as violent speech.
The court accepted that the Georgian courts were better placed to assess the cultural and linguistic significance of the language used. It agreed that the video contained neither satire nor stylistic expression capable of justifying the repeated obscenities.
While acknowledging that the applicant had included a warning about offensive language, the court considered that this did not meaningfully restrict access to the content, particularly given TikTok’s algorithmic “For You” feed and the possibility of minors encountering the video unintentionally.
The court further noted that the domestic courts had carefully balanced the competing interests involved, distinguishing between legitimate political criticism and abusive personal denigration. It also attached significance to the limited nature of the sanction imposed. Mr Miladze received only the minimum available fine, no criminal proceedings were brought against him, and the authorities neither removed the video nor restricted his social media accounts. The court observed that he remained free to continue criticising the authorities online.
Accordingly, the European Court concluded that the Georgian authorities had provided relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression and found no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Click here to read the judgment.