The case originates from an administrative fine imposed on a Georgian political activist, Lasha Miladze, following the publication of a video on his TikTok profile. In the video, the applicant intended to protest against a recent urban traffic reform. However, the political protest escalated into a highly colorful monologue, riddled with personal insults, obscene expressions, and sexually explicit allusions aimed directly at the capital's mayor and other local government representatives.

The ECHR, recalling the criteria relating to the content of the expressions, the context, their dissemination, the reasoning of the domestic courts, and the proportionality of the penalty, held that the conviction imposed on the applicant for the content published on TikTok did not violate Article 10 of the ECHR.

On the merits of the content, the Court reiterated that statements taking the form of targeted attacks against identifiable individuals may fall outside the protection of Article 10 of the ECHR, which does not protect gratuitous personal insults. While recognizing that the applicant's video was part of a broader public debate on transport reform in Tbilisi, the Strasbourg judges highlighted that a substantial part of the recording consisted of extremely crude and sexually explicit verbal attacks directed straight at the mayor and law enforcement officers (para. 71). Particularly significant is also the weight given to the Georgian linguistic and cultural context. The Court acknowledged that the national courts were in the best position to assess the meaning of the expressions used and their capacity to cause offense within the local social fabric. This reflects a reinforcement of the States' margin of appreciation, especially when the assessment depends on linguistic nuances that are not immediately translatable into universal terms (para. 73).

The publication of the video publicly and without restrictions on TikTok—a platform characterized by rapid algorithmic amplification and a particularly young audience—had a decisive impact on the Court's assessment (para. 75). From this perspective, the social network is considered a public communication space where the reach of the message and the risk of exposing minor users take on autonomous significance, even justifying a stricter approach given the network's capacity to cause instantaneous dissemination that infringes upon the right to respect for private life.

Finally, the Court took into account the punitive response of the national authorities, deeming it proportionate. The fine imposed was of a minimal amount, was not accompanied by custodial sentences, measures to remove the content, or further restrictions on the applicant's freedom to pursue his political activities. This circumstance allowed the interference to be qualified as necessary in a democratic society, also in light of the detailed and precise reasoning provided by the domestic courts (paras. 76-77).

In a broader perspective, the ruling seems to show how a pluralistic society requires not only the protection of dissent, but also the safeguarding of a communicative environment in which democratic debate does not degenerate into indiscriminate personal aggression.

 

(Comment by Laura Restuccia)