The Armenian Ministry of Justice has proposed a legislative initiative aimed at expanding mechanisms to protect honor, dignity, and business reputation online. The proposed changes would allow citizens to demand retractions, responses, and the removal of information containing false claims, regardless of whether it is disseminated by mass media or private individuals in the digital space.
This initiative responds to a Constitutional Court ruling that the existing legal framework limited citizens’ rights to protect their honor and dignity, allowing demands for retractions and removal of false information only when spread through official media. Consequently, the Ministry proposed amendments to the Civil Code and the Law on Mass Media to extend these rights to all forms of online information dissemination. However, the proposal raises numerous questions and contentious issues.
Technical and Legal Imbalance
At first glance, requiring the removal of posts even from non-media sources seems logical given the prevalence of digital communications. However, it remains unclear who should remove disputed content—the platform, the internet provider, or the post’s author? What happens if the author is anonymous or resides abroad? Is there a mechanism for cross-border enforcement of court rulings? And what about filing complaints directly with platforms without court involvement? The lack of clear procedures risks rendering these new norms merely declarative, unable to effectively protect citizens’ rights.
Blurred Line Between Media and Private Individuals
Current regulations protect against defamation only when information is published by official media. Extending this protection to all internet users reflects the reality of the digital age, where anyone can be a source of information. However, the legislative proposals fail to clarify the boundary between “media activity” and “private statements.” For instance, how should popular Telegram channels without media registration be classified? Essentially, every user now risks being held to the same legal accountability as media outlets. This creates a potentially excessive legal burden for bloggers, activists, and ordinary citizens, which could negatively impact freedom of public discourse.
Potential Threats to Freedom of Speech
While the new norms aim to protect honor and dignity, the risk of their misuse to suppress critics cannot be ignored. The bill lacks clear criteria accounting for the context of statements, such as satire, artistic expression, or subjective opinions. Without such filters, it’s easy to imagine a politician or public figure demanding the removal of a critical meme or post by citing “defamation.” In a politically charged environment, this could become a tool to restrict freedom of expression, contradicting the principles of a democratic society.
Lack of Institutional Enforcement Mechanisms
Even if a court rules in favor of the affected party, the question remains: how will the ruling be enforced? This is particularly relevant for international platforms like Meta, X, or Telegram, whose jurisdiction extends beyond Armenia. The bill lacks clear mechanisms for interaction with such platforms or specifying who is technically responsible for content removal—bailiffs, hosting providers, or the platforms themselves. Without such tools, the law risks remaining a paper tiger, undermining trust in the system for protecting rights in the digital environment.
Expanding the Concept of “Internet” in Legislation
Lawmakers rightly acknowledge the internet’s role as a new social and informational reality, necessitating adequate legal regulation. However, the proposed measures fail to account for the technical nuances of the digital space. They do not distinguish between centralized platforms and decentralized systems, where content removal may be technically impossible, such as in blockchain networks. The absence of adaptive, technically realistic solutions risks creating a conflict between legislation and the internet’s actual nature, reducing the effectiveness of the new rules.