Columbia Global Freedom of Expression: Algorithmic Amplification and Digital Public Order under Article 10 of the ECHR: The Case of Miladze v Georgia

By Natalie Alkiviadou

Political discourse increasingly unfolds within digital environments structured by algorithmic recommendation systems, viral dissemination mechanisms, and engagement-driven visibility metrics. Platforms such as TikTok do not merely host political and social debates; they shape their circulation, amplification, and public impact. Further, the speed and scale of dissemination in algorithmically mediated environments exceed those assumed within traditional freedom of expression jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR/the Court/Strasbourg).

Against this background, the ECtHR’s judgement in Miladze v Georgia (2026) marks an important development in Strasbourg jurisprudence concerning online political expression. The case arose from a TikTok video posted during public controversy surrounding transport reforms in Tbilisi, Georgia. In it, the applicant criticized bus lane policies and alleged preferential treatment of government officials in the use of certain lanes, while also directing repeated vulgar and sexually explicit insults at public authorities, including the Mayor of Tbilisi. The video circulated widely, receiving over 100,000 views and hundreds of shares. Domestic courts accepted that the speech concerned a matter of public debate but concluded that its aggressive and degrading language amounted to disorderly conduct incompatible with public order. Following a fine, the applicant challenged the measure under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which provides for the right to freedom of expression.

The Court unanimously found no violation of Article 10. While emphasizing the degrading nature of the remarks, it attached great significance to TikTok’s dissemination capacity, recommendation systems, accessibility to minors, and algorithmic amplification mechanisms. The judgment, therefore, assessed not only the content of the expression but also the communicative infrastructure through which it achieved visibility.

[. . .]

In the digital environment, amplification mechanisms such as sharing, reposting, and algorithmic dissemination may enable marginalized voices, activists, and minority groups to participate more effectively in public debate and political discourse. Consequently, while amplification may increase the reach and potential impact of harmful or unlawful expression, it can also enhance pluralism and broaden democratic participation, values that lie at the core of Article 10 protection. For this reason, striking down speech solely because vulgar or provocative language has been amplified through the architecture of platforms such as TikTok risks creating a significant chilling effect on political expression online. The fact that digital platforms are structurally designed to maximize visibility and engagement should not, in itself, justify a lower threshold of protection for speech that would otherwise fall within the ambit of political debate. To hold otherwise would allow the technological architecture of social media platforms to indirectly determine the scope of Article 10 protection, potentially discouraging robust, emotional, or unconventional forms of political participation that increasingly characterize contemporary online discourse.

Read More