An attempt to silence the media or a legislative necessity: what is being planned to be passed through the Civil Code?
25 September 16:47
ANALYSIS FROM 
A draft law on amendments to the Civil Code of Ukraine in connection with the updating (recodification) of the provisions of Book Two has appeared in the Verkhovna Rada. The title is not entirely clear, but the document proposes a number of changes to the Civil Code that would increase liability for disseminating information and introduce new refutation procedures. First of all, the media is in the crosshairs, and Kommersant Ukrainian found out how this could turn out.
In general, the goal of the bill is quite noble.
– Adapting civil legislation to the digital age means protecting personal human rights on the Internet and protecting against the risks associated with the use of artificial intelligence.
– Eliminating gaps in the legal regulation of the biomedical sphere – in particular, detailing reproductive rights, as well as regulating donation and transplantation.
– Improving the protection of personal data – including clear mechanisms for protecting biometric and genetic data, as well as enshrining the right to be forgotten.
– Expanding and detailing the personal rights of legal entities and the possibility of their application to other subjects of private legal relations.
– De-ideologization (de-Sovietization) of legislation – abandonment of outdated terms such as “personal non-property rights” and transition to the European concept of “personal rights” that emphasizes their independent value and fundamental nature.
Attorney Roman Lykhachov believes that this draft law contains many new provisions adapted to European norms. “Given that our Civil Code was adopted a long time ago and it retains many provisions that were in force during the Soviet era, the document is timely.
“Most of it contains key points related to the protection of property, missing persons and their property. There are separate articles on the support of veterans, and the issue of protecting children, which is now vaguely defined, has been improved. The draft law even takes into account military realities,” Roman Likhachev tells Kommersant Ukrainsky.
Internet under close control
At the same time, as the lawyer notes, in addition to positive innovations, the bill also contains controversial provisions related to the media. On the one hand, negative materials about someone often appear on the Internet on various platforms or information is presented incorrectly. For example, a person detained on suspicion of a criminal offense is already being called guilty without a court decision. His name and photo are published. Some bloggers, journalists or public figures do not follow basic rules. According to Roman Likhachev, this is where the legal order is needed.
The MPs propose to enshrine such personal rights in the digital environment:
The right to a digital image
– Protection of accounts, profiles, and avatars from counterfeiting and digital identity theft.
The right to digital privacy
– Protection of metadata, search history, geolocation, etc.
The right to be forgotten
– The ability to demand the removal of outdated or inaccurate information from public access and search engines.
The right to protection against dipfakes
– The prohibition of creating or using images and voices generated by AI without human consent.
The right to information privacy
– The ability not to participate in work communications (calls, messages) outside of working hours.
Pressure under the guise of protecting personal rights
But the media sector is also under pressure. Namely, the grounds for prohibiting the dissemination of information have been expanded. Now the court can ban a publication even before it is released if there is a risk of violating personal rights.
A clear definition of “false information” has been introduced. A mandatory mechanism for refutation (how, where, and within what timeframe) has been prescribed. It is explicitly stated that the refutation does not depend on the fault of the journalist or the editorial office.
For the first time, it is regulated in detail how a rebuttal should be made on the Internet: on the same URL, in the same social network, with appropriate markings, visibility, deadlines, etc.
The right to “response” and “reconciliation” has been introduced, meaning that a citizen can demand the opportunity to speak out (even if the information is true). An apology becomes a form of compensation, but does not cancel other claims. If false information was contained in a document (including a media one), it must be withdrawn, canceled or destroyed.
As a result, even without the fault of the journalist or editorial office, false information will have to be retracted; compensation will have to be paid; and a trial will have to be held.
The media are becoming more vulnerable
The media are becoming more vulnerable, especially if they deal with high-profile topics (anti-corruption investigations, scandals, politics), lawyers believe. But bloggers will bear no less responsibility.
“Inaccurate information can be easily challenged, even if it was disseminated unintentionally. And any Internet user or media outlet that spreads a lie must publicly and timely refute it. Response and refutation are different forms of defense, and both can be used. The new rules oblige media outlets, bloggers, YouTube and Telegram channels to accurately identify sources, avoid unsubstantiated accusations, and respond promptly to claims. The law strengthens the protection of honor and reputation, including in the digital environment. It is possible that public figures or oligarchs will use the new rules to put pressure on the media or ban publications before they are even published to force the media to refute even true but inconvenient information (under the guise of “violation of personal rights”),” says lawyer Valentyn Serkov.
The draft law states that personal rights are non-property rights that are inseparable from the person. If such rights are expanded, the media will have to be more careful about publications that contain personal data, digital images, etc. The line between freedom of speech and protection of the individual will become thinner. The media may be held liable for violating new digital rights (for example, for publishing without consent).
If personal rights are not only reserved for individuals, but also for legal entities, this may mean that companies and media will also be able to demand the protection of personal rights (in certain cases). Media outlets will have to take into account that not only individuals but also organizations can file claims against publications.
What will this mean for the media:
– The media will not be able to use accounts, avatars, profiles as “illustrations” of events without consent, especially if it may look like manipulation or distortion.
– It is prohibited to collect and publish metadata, query history, geolocation, etc. – the media will have to check whether they violate the digital traces of a person.
– A person will be able to demand the removal of materials – even from media archives or search engines – if they consider the information “outdated” or “false” (the right to be forgotten). This creates a challenge: when is the removal justified and when does it contradict freedom of speech?
– Media outlets will be obliged to check whether they use images or audio files that can be perceived as created by AI without permission (e.g., editing, voice synthesis).
– The right to information peace may limit media contact (inquiries, messages) outside of working hours, especially if journalists communicate directly with a person.
Author: Alla Dunina
