6 ms·

This is unfortunately how it works here in Sweden, and it's terrible. Truth is really incredibly important and not having the freedom to speak truth one knows

This is unfortunately how it works here in Sweden, and it's terrible. Truth is really incredibly important and not having the freedom to speak truth one knows and which one feels are important is a tremendous imposition. Ones reputation isn't like ones body parts-- but the truthful speech of the person who would speak against you, that's the true body part.

bjornsing 2y ago
> This is unfortunately how it works here in Sweden, and it's terrible. I’d say it has its ups and downs. One upside is that the court does not have to delve into the question of truth as a part of legal proceedings. It’s also worth noting that “true defamation” is only legal when you can prove it’s true. So it’s not really a freedom to speak truth, just a freedom to speak what is provably true. I think the main problem with the Swedish law is that it places too little emphasis on the intent behind the “true definition”. For example I think it’s wrong to “defame” someone in order to gain control over a company, in some cases even if the statements are true. But I think it’s a very different thing to indite someone for telling their life story in a book, because a central part of their life is that they were the victim of a crime (see e.g. the chancellor of justice’s prosecution of Cissi Wallin for her autobiography).
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  >One upside is that the court does not have to delve into the question of truth as a part of legal proceedings. That's only an upside for lazy jurists. For the people who say true things and punished for them, it is only repression. I think should follow the basic view that we have always had: that the courts may consider anything they have knowledge of, the free evidence evaluation. The primacy of freedom of speech must central, and I think we should think as if though everyone were psychologically very strongly compelled to speak about what he does and that we should have the presumption that he speaks honestly. Truth is also special, and rightly holds a special place in people's psychology and in religion.
  - bjornsing 2y ago
    I agree to some extent, especially about the value of truth. But I think you’re oversimplifying. For example, let’s imagine we are in a hypothetical future Sweden where “true defamation” is legal and that somebody is spreading false rumors that you are a rapist. Now you have to decide if you should take them to court or not. If you don’t then people will think “oh it must be true then”. If you do then you will have to prove you are not a rapist, under a balance of probabilities test. This is much harder than defending yourself from a criminal indictment, where the burden of proof is on the prosecutor / victim. So what do you do? If you do go to court and fail to prove your innocence then there’s now an official document that essentially states you are a rapist.
    - impossiblefork 2y ago
      No. You only need to prove that the other party recklessly claimed it without evidence. The defence is the truth of the statement, or at least in its non-recklessness and that is provided by the party that is sued. The American approach on this clearly works. There's a recent US case of defamation some dead children with clearly excessive fines, but that's also in the other direction.
      - bjornsing 2y ago
        Again, I think you’re oversimplifying. There’s nothing reckless about accusing someone of rape, even if the only proof you have is your own testimony under oath.
  - lupire 2y ago
    Religion? Religion is the one area of the life where truth s independent of proof. Some would say that truth without proof is my truth at all. Religion says that A's unverifiable statements are sacred and not allowed to be criticized, but B's are heretical and punished.
    - diffxx 2y ago
      This is neither distinct to religious beliefs nor universal among practitioners.
cess11 2y ago
Can you give five examples?
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  There aren't five cases in the Swedish court system where this has been relevant. There's only really been two cases. One is a case where a Swedish Christian Democrat politician brought up what the opposing council in a certain dispute had done previously and was convicted of defamation for this. Another is a case where a Swedish journalist was convicted of defamation for that he brought up that a guy who was suing people for all sorts of rubbish was himself criminal-adjacent in that he had been prosecuted for animal cruelty, but had remained outside the country until the state of limitations came into effect.
  - agolio 2y ago
    I know nothing of Swedish law, but do these rulings not conflict with Section 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?
    - arlort 2y ago
      The EU charter of fundamental rights does not apply to national law And the echr gives a lot of leeway to national laws
      - cess11 2y ago
        ECHR is law in Sweden and the constitution states that no law can be enforced that is contrary to the ECHR. This has consequences for when defamation is punishable. Edit: And the EU charter is basically the ECHR but with some minor additions and it's own court.
        arlort 2y ago
        > the constitution states that no law can be enforced that is contrary to the ECHR Yes, but the decision of what is contrary to the ECHR is made by the ECHR and they always give pretty ample margins to member states. The ECHR is supposed to be a lower limit on what protections are given. Not the ultimate authority on what protections should be given. Maybe they'd rule these cases in violation, all I'm saying is that I wouldn't be shocked if they didn't > the EU charter is basically the ECHR but with some minor additions and it's own court No, actually it's completely different from the ECHR. The ECHR is a treaty which applies to all actions and legislation of the parties. The EU charter is specifically targeted at EU law. It is a protection against interference originating in EU law and its scope applies only to EU law and its implementation. So if your rights are violated due to an EU regulation you have recourse because of the charter, if they are violated due to how your country implemented an EU directive you have recourse, and if they are violated by your country because of how they are enforcing some legislation you have recourse. However the member states themselves could pass their own law completely violating these principles and as long as it doesn't infringe on EU competences you'd have no recourse (well, you'd still likely have the ECHR)

bjornsing 2y ago

> This is unfortunately how it works here in Sweden, and it's terrible. I’d say it has its ups and downs. One upside is that the court does not have to delve into the question of truth as a part of legal proceedings. It’s also worth noting that “true defamation” is only legal when you can prove it’s true. So it’s not really a freedom to speak truth, just a freedom to speak what is provably true. I think the main problem with the Swedish law is that it places too little emphasis on the intent behind the “true definition”. For example I think it’s wrong to “defame” someone in order to gain control over a company, in some cases even if the statements are true. But I think it’s a very different thing to indite someone for telling their life story in a book, because a central part of their life is that they were the victim of a crime (see e.g. the chancellor of justice’s prosecution of Cissi Wallin for her autobiography).

impossiblefork 2y ago
>One upside is that the court does not have to delve into the question of truth as a part of legal proceedings. That's only an upside for lazy jurists. For the people who say true things and punished for them, it is only repression. I think should follow the basic view that we have always had: that the courts may consider anything they have knowledge of, the free evidence evaluation. The primacy of freedom of speech must central, and I think we should think as if though everyone were psychologically very strongly compelled to speak about what he does and that we should have the presumption that he speaks honestly. Truth is also special, and rightly holds a special place in people's psychology and in religion.
- bjornsing 2y ago
  I agree to some extent, especially about the value of truth. But I think you’re oversimplifying. For example, let’s imagine we are in a hypothetical future Sweden where “true defamation” is legal and that somebody is spreading false rumors that you are a rapist. Now you have to decide if you should take them to court or not. If you don’t then people will think “oh it must be true then”. If you do then you will have to prove you are not a rapist, under a balance of probabilities test. This is much harder than defending yourself from a criminal indictment, where the burden of proof is on the prosecutor / victim. So what do you do? If you do go to court and fail to prove your innocence then there’s now an official document that essentially states you are a rapist.
  - impossiblefork 2y ago
    No. You only need to prove that the other party recklessly claimed it without evidence. The defence is the truth of the statement, or at least in its non-recklessness and that is provided by the party that is sued. The American approach on this clearly works. There's a recent US case of defamation some dead children with clearly excessive fines, but that's also in the other direction.
    - bjornsing 2y ago
      Again, I think you’re oversimplifying. There’s nothing reckless about accusing someone of rape, even if the only proof you have is your own testimony under oath.
- lupire 2y ago
  Religion? Religion is the one area of the life where truth s independent of proof. Some would say that truth without proof is my truth at all. Religion says that A's unverifiable statements are sacred and not allowed to be criticized, but B's are heretical and punished.
  - diffxx 2y ago
    This is neither distinct to religious beliefs nor universal among practitioners.

cess11 2y ago

Can you give five examples?

impossiblefork 2y ago
There aren't five cases in the Swedish court system where this has been relevant. There's only really been two cases. One is a case where a Swedish Christian Democrat politician brought up what the opposing council in a certain dispute had done previously and was convicted of defamation for this. Another is a case where a Swedish journalist was convicted of defamation for that he brought up that a guy who was suing people for all sorts of rubbish was himself criminal-adjacent in that he had been prosecuted for animal cruelty, but had remained outside the country until the state of limitations came into effect.
- agolio 2y ago
  I know nothing of Swedish law, but do these rulings not conflict with Section 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?
  - arlort 2y ago
    The EU charter of fundamental rights does not apply to national law And the echr gives a lot of leeway to national laws
    - cess11 2y ago
      ECHR is law in Sweden and the constitution states that no law can be enforced that is contrary to the ECHR. This has consequences for when defamation is punishable. Edit: And the EU charter is basically the ECHR but with some minor additions and it's own court.
      - arlort 2y ago
        > the constitution states that no law can be enforced that is contrary to the ECHR Yes, but the decision of what is contrary to the ECHR is made by the ECHR and they always give pretty ample margins to member states. The ECHR is supposed to be a lower limit on what protections are given. Not the ultimate authority on what protections should be given. Maybe they'd rule these cases in violation, all I'm saying is that I wouldn't be shocked if they didn't > the EU charter is basically the ECHR but with some minor additions and it's own court No, actually it's completely different from the ECHR. The ECHR is a treaty which applies to all actions and legislation of the parties. The EU charter is specifically targeted at EU law. It is a protection against interference originating in EU law and its scope applies only to EU law and its implementation. So if your rights are violated due to an EU regulation you have recourse because of the charter, if they are violated due to how your country implemented an EU directive you have recourse, and if they are violated by your country because of how they are enforcing some legislation you have recourse. However the member states themselves could pass their own law completely violating these principles and as long as it doesn't infringe on EU competences you'd have no recourse (well, you'd still likely have the ECHR)