A newly registered draft law in Ukraine aims to enhance protection against threats and violence targeting state and public figures, particularly in the digital environment. It reflects growing attention to the risks associated with online communication and the need to address evolving forms of harassment and incitement. At the same time, its broad provisions may have unintended consequences for civil society organisations (CSOs), and the way public debate is conducted, particularly in relation to advocacy, criticism, and engagement in public discourse.
The draft law No. 14372 proposes amendments to Article 346 of the Criminal Code, including:
- Introducing criminal liability for "public calls" and "public incitement" to violence;
- Extending liability to actions in the digital space, including sharing or commenting on content;
- Significantly increasing penalties, up to life imprisonment in aggravated cases.
These changes come at a time when online platforms play a central role in civic mobilisation and advocacy, especially during wartime. By explicitly including digital actions, the law acknowledges modern realities but also expands the scope of criminal liability beyond direct acts of violence.
The issue is increasingly relevant because the law could redefine the threshold between legitimate criticism and criminal conduct, affecting how CSOs, activists, and journalists communicate with the public.
The most critical concern lies in the lack of clear definitions of key terms such as "public incitement", "calls to violence", or even "supporting or endorsing materials".
In practice, this creates a risk that:
- Strong political statements or advocacy campaigns could be interpreted as incitement;
- Social media activity (e.g. reposts or comments) may trigger criminal liability;
- Law enforcement may apply the provisions selectively or inconsistently.
Real-life impact: chilling effect for watchdog organisations
Furthermore, the severity of sanctions, including long-term imprisonment and even life sentences, raises concerns about proportionality. Together, these elements may lead to a "chilling effect", where civil society actors would avoid speaking out due to fear of legal consequences. This directly impacts the enabling environment for CSOs, particularly those engaged in anti-corruption work, advocacy, or government oversight.
Imagine a civil society organisation running an advocacy campaign calling for accountability of a public official. Strong wording, emotional messaging, or mobilisation efforts could be misinterpreted as incitement, especially if supporters engage actively online. Similarly, a journalist quoting or analysing controversial statements, or an activist sharing a post criticising a politician, might face legal uncertainty about whether such actions fall within the scope of criminal liability.
This creates a situation where everyday civic actions such as posting, commenting, or criticising; carry potential legal risks, even if no real intent to incite violence exists. As a result, public debate may become more cautious, less critical, and less inclusive, weakening democratic accountability.
Experts and civil society organisations have already called for a substantial revision of the draft law, including:
- Clearer definitions aligned with international standards on freedom of expression;
- Removal or narrowing of provisions related to "supporting" or "endorsing" content;
- Revision of sanctions to ensure proportionality;
- Safeguards for journalists, activists, and CSOs.
The next steps will likely involve parliamentary review and potential amendments, as well as advocacy efforts from civil society and international partners. If revised carefully, the law could balance protection and freedoms. If not, it risks becoming a tool that limits civic space at a critical time for Ukraine’s democratic resilience and EU integration.