The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that not all online invective directed at politicians is protected free speech.
In a recent judgment, Miladze v. Georgia, the Court upheld Georgian authorities’ decision to fine a man for a viral TikTok video in which he used explicit and vulgar insults against public officials while criticising transport policy in Tbilisi.
The case centred on Irakli Miladze, a civil activist and delivery courier, who posted a publicly accessible video alleging misconduct by officials and attacking new municipal transport measures, including the rollout of dedicated bus lanes in the Georgian capital.
In doing so, he insulted officials using terms roughly equivalent to “motherf***er” and “go f*** your mother” in English and repeatedly used the Georgian slang nabozari, meaning “son of a bitch”. Among those targeted were Tbilisi Mayor Kakha Kaladze, employees of Tbilisi City Hall and police officers.
Domestic courts convicted him in 2023 for “disturbing public order” and imposed a 500 GEL (€180) fine — the minimum penalty under Georgian law — arguing that his remarks amounted to gratuitous insult rather than protected political speech.
They said that they took into account in particular the aggressive and vulgar language used and the potential impact, especially for young people, of sexually explicit personal insults on a widely used social media platform.
An appeals court later dropped a separate charge of insulting law enforcement officers, finding that the remarks had targeted officers in general rather than specific officers on duty. The disorderly conduct conviction, though, was upheld.
Miladze challenged the ruling, claiming that the law had been improperly extended to social media, that his remarks did not constitute hate speech and that viewers could have avoided the content, given his warning about offensive language.
The Court emphasised that the message used aggressive, sexually explicit insults and was posted on a widely used social media platform.
It said this mattered because such language can easily reach large audiences, including young people, even if they are not actively looking for it.
“Like the national courts, the Court saw no political or social satire, nor any stylistic purpose, at play that could justify the choice of such coarse language. Although Mr Miladze had warned that the video contained obscene language, this had not restricted minors accessing it or prevented the content from appearing on non-voluntary algorithmic feeds (‘For Your Feed’),” the ECHR ruled on May 19, 2026.
The seven-judge chamber decided unanimously.
The Strasbourg judges placed particular weight on TikTok’s recommendation engine, which is designed to push short, emotionally charged content to large audiences regardless of whether users have sought it out. That technical reality, they said, distinguished the case from comparable speech in older media environments, where exposure tended to be more deliberate.
The ECHR argued that governments are allowed some flexibility (“margin of appreciation”) in deciding when and how much they can limit free speech.
The Court argued that the Georgian authorities were allowed to fine Miladze for the way he expressed himself online and that the fine did not violate his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
