Fine for Insulting Officials on TikTok — ECHR Expresses Views on the Limits of Freedom of Speech on Social Networks

The European Court of Human Rights recognized that administrative punishment for a harsh and offensive video on TikTok does not violate freedom of expression if it concerns personal insults to officials rather than political criticism. This decision was made by the ECHR on May 19, 2026, in the case of Miladze v. Georgia.

According to the case details, the applicant was a food delivery courier. In December 2022, he published a public video on TikTok dedicated to Tbilisi's transport policy and the work of the city authorities. The recording was open to all users, quickly went viral, received over 100,000 views, and was then "shared" 600 times.

In the video, the applicant emotionally criticized the city's transport reforms, particularly the organization of bus lanes and the actions of officials. At the same time, a significant part of his statements contained obscene language and harsh personal insults directed at the mayor of Tbilisi, city administration employees, and law enforcement representatives. After the video was published, the police initiated administrative proceedings, considering that the content violates public order. The applicant was held liable for administrative offenses related to violating public order and insulting law enforcement officers.

The police argued that TikTok should be considered a public gathering place within the meaning of the Code of Administrative Offenses. They also noted that the obscene language used by the applicant deprived his statements of freedom of speech protection and constituted punishable behavior under the rules on public order violations and insults to law enforcement officers.

The applicant, for his part, insisted that he added a warning about obscene language before the video, so viewers could decide whether to continue watching. He argued that under such conditions, TikTok could not be considered a "public place." Although he admitted recording and publishing the video, the applicant referred to freedom of expression and emphasized that his criticism of transport policy and law enforcement actions was protected, even if harsh. He also noted that swearing was not aimed at specific individuals but was general in nature.

Regarding the accusations of insulting law enforcement officers, the applicant pointed out that his words were not addressed to specific persons, so the offense was absent.

The Tbilisi City Court found the man guilty of two administrative offenses and imposed a fine of 2,000 lari (approximately 720 euros at that time).

The court noted that TikTok is a public space since social networks play an important role in public life and can influence public order. It also referred to national practice where social networks have already been recognized as such a space. The court emphasized that public order is related to compliance with generally accepted moral and ethical rules and requirements of decent behavior in public spaces.

The applicant appealed to the ECHR, claiming that his prosecution violated Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

ECHR Conclusions

In this case, the ECHR recognized that the applicant's video was part of a public discussion about transport reform in Tbilisi. The Court also noted that a significant part of the video contained no normal criticism or arguments. Instead, there were harsh, rude, and offensive statements that appeared as direct personal attacks on the mayor and law enforcement officers.

The ECHR stated that when statements amount to humiliating specific individuals rather than discussing the topic, they fall outside the protection of Article 10. Freedom of speech does not mean the right to baseless insults.

The Court recalled that public officials also have the right to dignity protection while performing their duties, and in certain cases, the state may protect them from such attacks.

Moreover, the ECHR agreed with the national courts' assessment, noting that the TikTok video was not limited to political criticism but contained explicit personal insults directed at specific officials. This was decisive in rejecting a violation of Article 10.

The Court acknowledged that the applicant indeed addressed the topic of city policy and law enforcement work, meaning there was an element of public discussion. However, it noted that a significant part of the statements contained no arguments or criticism as such — they were emotional, harsh, and humiliating formulations aimed at specific individuals, not at policies or institutions.

The ECHR also noted the scale of the video's dissemination — open access, a large number of views, and algorithmic distribution on TikTok. This strengthened the assessment of the statements' impact and supported the proportionality of the interference. The Court also paid attention to the method of spreading the video and its influence. The applicant published the content openly on TikTok without any audience restrictions. The platform, as noted by the ECHR, operates through rapid spread algorithms and has particularly wide engagement among young audiences.

In this case, the video gained over 100,000 views and was shared about 600 times. According to the Court, such figures indicate significant coverage and enhance the potential impact of the statements, especially compared to situations where dissemination is limited or narrow.

The ECHR emphasized the general principle that the internet and social networks can instantly spread content, so states may apply a stricter approach to assessing liability for illegal or offensive statements.

The Court stressed that the applicant's warning about obscene language in the video did not reduce the risk of its wide dissemination. The content could be accessible to a significant audience, including minors and users who did not expect such content.

In conclusion, the ECHR found that the imposed administrative fine was not severe, was not accompanied by content blocking or other additional restrictions, and did not cause an excessive chilling effect on freedom of expression. In view of this, the Court recognized the interference with the applicant's rights as proportionate and not violating Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page Facebook and on Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.