Moldova's disinformation law sparks censorship fears
A proposed amendment to Moldova’s Contravention Code seeks to impose sanctions on online disinformation, particularly during elections and national crises.
According to its initiators, the measure is necessary to protect the country’s informational space from manipulation. However, opposition parties and civil society groups warn that the law could lead to censorship and infringe on freedom of expression.
Experts warn: vague definitions, enforcement challenges, and risk of abuse
Media and free speech experts argue that, despite its good intentions, the proposal lacks clarity, is difficult to enforce, and could open the door to potential abuses. They highlight the absence of clear criteria for defining online disinformation and identifying responsible parties. Without such criteria, the enforcement of penalties risks becoming arbitrary.
"There have been various public discussions on this initiative, including among media experts. In my opinion, legislation should be stricter on those who intentionally spread disinformation, especially public figures who do so knowingly. However, in its current form, the law needs further refinement to clearly define what constitutes online disinformation and, crucially, to specify who will be responsible for enforcing the penalties. It is difficult to believe that a police officer or another designated official would have the capacity to determine what qualifies as intentional disinformation. The proposal has shortcomings, even if the intention is good—it needs further work," stated Petru Macovei, Executive Director of the Association of Independent Press and a member of the Council for Strategic Communication and Countering Disinformation.
Legal expert Cristina Durnea deems the initiative “inadmissible”, arguing that it fails to meet legal standards of clarity, quality, and predictability. "The concept must align with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards freedom of expression. We hope that, if not before the public consultations, then at least after them, lawmakers will either abandon or significantly revise this initiative, as it presents clear risks of unjustified interference with free speech," she explained.
Opposition criticism: a move towards censorship?
Opposition parties strongly oppose the draft law, accusing the ruling party of attempting to control free speech under the guise of combating disinformation. They argue that the measure is intended to silence critical voices and limit diversity of opinion in the online space.
The European Social Democratic Party condemned what it called "an attempt by the PAS government to impose widespread censorship and drastically restrict the right to free expression."
Similarly, the Socialist Party of Moldova criticized the proposal, calling it "another undemocratic initiative by the ruling PAS party, which introduces sanctions for so-called online disinformation."
Supporters: the need for regulation
Proponents of the law insist that a legal framework is necessary to counter the growing threat of disinformation, particularly during electoral campaigns and national crises. They argue that online misinformation has become a powerful tool for manipulation, requiring stronger digital regulations.
The proposed amendment to the Contravention Code introduces penalties for the deliberate dissemination of false or misleading information through publicly accessible online platforms, aiming to mislead the public and undermine democracy, public health, or national security.
If the act does not constitute a criminal offense, the penalties would be:
- Between 50 and 100 conventional units for individuals,
- Up to 150 units for officials,
- Up to 200 units for legal entities.
Stricter penalties would apply if disinformation is used to influence voters or support manipulation efforts by foreign entities. However, the law explicitly exempts individuals who share false content for debate, criticism, satire, or educational purposes—provided they clearly indicate that the information is false.
The first round of public consultations on the initiative was scheduled for March 21 in Parliament, but the proposal has been sent back for further review, as suggested by PAS lawmaker Veronica Roșca.
Translation by Iurie Tataru
