FACTS

On June 3, 2024, Hovsep Khurshudyan, the head of the Free Citizen NGO, filed a lawsuit with the Court of General Jurisdiction of Yerevan against Asekose Ltd., the founder of Asekose.am news website, under paragraph 3 of Article 1087.1 of the Civil Code (court case No. ED2/4333/02/24). The plaintiff stated that on May 1, 2024, the media outlet had published on its YouTube channel a video created by Facebook user Hayk Manasyan titled “Hayk Manasyan Responds to Hovsep Khurshudyan: You’re Either Spreading False News or Spying.” According to the plaintiff, the title constituted defamation, as it addressed him with a public remark that tarnished his dignity and was untrue. Hovsep Khurshudyan pointed out that the outlet had deliberately selected a formulation designed to attract a large number of views, while disregarding its defamatory nature. He also highlighted that the title “bears no connection” to the content of the video, which, in fact, had been distorted. The plaintiff requested that the court oblige the defendant company to remove the disputed video from the Asekose.am YouTube channel, and to issue a public apology to Hovsep Khurshudyan for spreading defamation. The proposed apology reads: “Asekose” Ltd. apologizes for the piece titled “Hayk Manasyan Responds to Hovsep Khurshudyan: You’re Either Spreading False News or Spying.” The plaintiff also requested that the apology be published as a video on the same YouTube channel. In addition, the plaintiff sought financial compensation in the amount of 1 million drams. The trial remains in progress.

The controversial piece is currently unavailable on YouTube; however, it can be found on www.asekose.am website under the following headline: “They Can’t Get a Report—He’s Either Spreading False News or Spying: Hayk Manasyan Responds to Hovsep Khurshudyan.”

CONCLUSION

Paragraph 6 of Article 1087.1 of the Civil Code stipulates that individuals are exempt from liability for insult or defamation “if the communicated factual data constitute a verbatim or bona fide reproduction of (…) information contained in another individual’s public statement, official documents, another media source, or any author’s work and provided that in the course of its dissemination the source (author) of information has been referenced. In this case, the media outlet posted on its YouTube channel a video created by Facebook user Hayk Manasyan, which had previously been published on his social media account. The video was reproduced in full and without any modification. However, upon reviewing the content of the video and comparing it with the title selected by the editorial team, the IDC identified a clear discrepancy between the two.

In the segment of the video between minutes 10:00 and 16:00, Hayk Manasyan explains that if Hovsep Khurshudyan obtained the data (regarded as a banking secret) used in his controversial statement from another individual, then he/she either had disseminated false news, or, if the news was true, had access to a banking secret, which in Manasyan’s assessment suggested that “there is espionage involved.” An analysis of the piece shows that Hayk Manasyan directed his statement or assessments toward a third party rather than toward Hovsep Khurshudyan. Nonetheless, the title chosen for the video by the media outlet objectively gives any impartial viewer or observer the impression that Manasyan’s remarks were directed at Hovsep Khurshudyan personally.

The defendant company’s argument that due to technical reasons the original title of the video (“They Can’t Get a Report—He’s Either Spreading False News or Spying: Hayk Manasyan Responds to Hovsep Khurshudyan”) could not be used on YouTube is irrelevant, since the social network in question merely provides a platform with its clear terms known in advance to users, while decisions regarding the manner, format, and style of the publication of any content are made by the users/authors. Thus, responsibility in all cases lies with the publisher of the content, not with the provider of the online platform. Content creators on social media platforms are responsible for the legal consequences resulting from their publications. This principle is also stipulated in YouTube’s Terms of Service.

Within the context of media freedoms, the notion of “bona fide reproduction” serves as an important legal safeguard protecting editorial offices from liability for disseminating content taken from other sources. Interpreting the concept of “bona fide reproduction” enshrined in paragraph 6 of Article 1087.1 of the Civil Code, the Court of Cassation highlighted that the legislative requirement for verbatim or bona fide reproduction is aimed at “ensuring that the information contained in the source is presented verbatim or is published in a manner that does not change either the overall meaning or the details relating to specific facts.“[1] In this case, as noted earlier, the media outlet accompanied the republished video with a title that not only failed to reflect the content of the original piece, but also tarnished the dignity of an individual.

Thus, the IDC concludes that Asekose.am disseminated the video with the contested title in violation of paragraph 6 of Article 1087.1 of the Civil Code.

At the same time, the IDC believes that the out-of-court settlement of such disputes is preferable, especially in light of the fact that Asekose.am, according to information provided to the IDC by its founder, expressed readiness to settle the matter. In this case, the plaintiff could have approached the editorial office with a demand to change the title. Moreover, he could have sought the opportunity to respond, and in the event of a refusal, applied to the Media Ethics Observatory or the IDC.

As for the claim for monetary compensation, it is important to consider that both parties to the proceedings carry out socially oriented activities, and for both of them, democratic self-governance and the free circulation of information of public interest – a condition for such governance – constitute objectives of their work. Meanwhile, the amount of compensation claimed, should it be awarded by the court, may have a chilling effect on the media outlet and damage the future unrestricted coverage of sensitive topics and events. In this regard, reducing the claimed sum or withdrawing it would be advisable.

Information Disputes Council

Shushan Doydoyan (IDC Secretary), President of Freedom of Information Center
Boris Navasardian, Honorary President of Yerevan Press Club
Ara Ghazaryan, Director of “Ara Ghazaryan” Law Firm
Aram Abrahamyan, Chief Editor of “Aravot” Daily
Ashot Melikyan, Chairman of Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression
Olga Safaryan, Lawyer

[1] Decision of the Court of Cassation dated April 27, 2012 in the civil case No. LD/0749/02/10 concerning Boris Ashrafyan, p. 10