The recently-adopted Law on Mass Media in Kyrgyzstan represents a serious setback for press freedom and freedom of expression. ARTICLE 19 calls on the authorities to urgently reassess the legislation and amend the problematic provisions that impose severe obstacles to free reporting and restrict the public’s access to information.
On 6 August, Kyrgyzstan’s President Sadyr Japarov signed the Law on Mass Media, which has long sparked widespread opposition from human rights groups and media freedom advocates, who repeatedly called for a veto.
The bill, first proposed by the presidential administration in October 2022, faced strong criticism for granting the authorities excessive control over media outlets and online platforms. It was later revised by a working group comprising media experts and journalists, and the draft sent to parliament was deemed an ‘acceptable compromise’. However, during the parliamentary debate, problematic provisions were reintroduced, despite having been removed during earlier consultations with civil society.
ARTICLE 19 supports the call from civil society in Kyrgyzstan and highlights concrete and serious risks that this legislation poses to media independence and freedom of expression in the country.
The controversial Law on Mass Media includes several problematic provisions, namely:
- Mandatory registration for all media outlets
- Foreign ownership restrictions
- Removal of the concept of ‘independent journalist’
- Overly broad and vague content restrictions
Mandatory registration
The law introduces mandatory registration for all media outlets including online resources. Unregistered media are not allowed to perform their normal functions, which defies the contemporary understanding of journalism as a civic function and not as a regulated profession. In addition, the Cabinet of Ministers is set to develop the framework for the registration procedure, including the grounds for refusal. If adopted, this law would allow state bodies to deny new registrations or shut down already registered media without serious grounds.
Under international human rights standards, media registration should be voluntary and based on a simple notification procedure, save for the necessary licensing schemes for broadcast media. Moreover, mandatory registration for all types of media violates Kyrgyzstan’s Constitution (Article 63 prohibiting laws that restrict freedom of speech, the press, or mass media).
Foreign ownership restrictions
The Law on Mass Media bans foreign legal entities and companies with over 35% foreign ownership from founding media outlets. This could threaten media pluralism in the country by undermining the operations and sustainability of major independent media outlets in Kyrgyzstan. Instead of imposing blanket bans, laws should focus on preventing market monopolies, ensuring transparent ownership structures, and safeguarding editorial independence. Any restrictions on the extent of foreign ownership of media should be implemented in a non-arbitrary manner and support the positive obligation of States to protect media pluralism.
As a point of comparative law and useful guidance in this area, Kyrgyzstan could draw on the provisions from the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) as well as the Council of Europe’s Recommendation on media pluralism, both of which recommend measures towards achieving greater ownership transparency, including disclosure of ultimate beneficiaries, to ensure media independence and protect against hidden political or corporate influence.
Removal of the concept of ‘independent journalist’
The law introduces a definition of a ‘journalist’ that includes only those working for registered media. This excludes bloggers, freelancers, and independent reporters from protections and rights needed to carry out their job. Under the new definition, if a media outlet loses registration, its journalists would be unable to legally collect and disseminate information.
ARTICLE 19 has long advocated for a broad, functional definition of journalism understood as an activity that can be exercised by everyone, as highlighted by the UN Human Rights Committee and by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers. Such a definition should not be limited to those affiliated with traditional media.
Overly broad and vague content restrictions
The law prohibits dissemination of content deemed as ‘inciting racial, ethnic, national, religious, or interregional hatred’ or ‘undermining national dignity’ without clear definitions of these terms. The vague wording opens the door for arbitrary interpretation and could be used as a tool to suppress journalistic work and public debate on critical, sometimes sensitive issues.
ARTICLE 19 has long underscored that any restrictions on freedom of expression must meet a three-part test to ensure they are provided for by the law, necessary, and proportionate, and pursue a legitimate aim. Without clear definitions and safeguards, such broad and vague restrictions fail this test and risk creating a hostile environment for civil society, where free speech and independent journalists are targeted and ultimately prosecuted for engaging in public debate and disseminating information. A range of alternative measures shy of prohibitions and content removals should apply to legitimate concerns over ‘hate speech’, particularly the type that reaches the threshold of ‘incitement to violence, discrimination and hostility’ under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Blanket prohibitions, insofar as they fail to assess the context, content, and intent behind the expression, and other relevant criteria to determine an appropriate response, fail the point of necessity and proportionality.
ARTICLE 19 urges the authorities to reconsider the Law on Mass Media and repeal the current version of the legislation, as it poses a major threat to press freedom and freedom of expression. We stress that registration should remain voluntary, with simple and transparent procedures for those who choose to register. Licensing rules, which can be a permissible regulatory intervention for broadcast media, but not for other types of media, must be clearly set out in the law itself, not left to the control of executive powers. Foreign ownership limits cannot be placed if they threaten media pluralism. Instead, the authorities should develop measures boosting media ownership transparency and preventing monopolisation . The Law must reflect a broad functional definition of journalism in line with human rights standards, such as those outlined in the UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 34, and avoid excessive or vague restrictions on speech that serve only to encourage censorship.