3 ms·

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 D

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)
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  Probably, but the court that I think would be most likely to rule against it is the ECHR (i.e. the EC court). I believe that the government would have lost if this had been brought to the ECHR.
cess11 2y ago
OK, so it's not actually a big problem. I can't identify the first case, the second sounds like Lamotte, and if so, it's not a journalist but a YouTube beggar catering to a neofascist audience. To me it's obvious that you either ignore or is unaware of constitutional limitations of the criminalisation of defamation, notably in ECHR and three constitutional laws. If you spread defamatory 'truths' in a free speech setting where the victim can defend themselves you'll easily get away with it.
- CrazyStat 2y ago
  A law can have chilling consequences even if it is not often prosecuted. The New York Times had an article a few years ago about Swedish defamation law in the context of the #MeToo movement, so there’s another example for you. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/15/opinion/cissi-wallin-fredrik-virtanen-metoo-sweden.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/15/opinion/cissi...
  - cess11 2y ago
    Has the truth of Wallin's claims actually been established? IIRC that hasn't been done, and if so that case is irrelevant. And it's not an article, it's an opinion piece by a person who also claims to have been mistreated by Virtanen and helped spread Wallin's statements about him: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/granskning/ug/reportern-skrev-att-virtanen-kallat-henne-hora-sedan-granskade-hon-honom https://www.svt.se/nyheter/granskning/ug/reportern-skrev-att... Edit: Should probably add that there is very little chilling from our defamation criminalisation, it's commonly used in far right political activism for example. The Lamotte case is an outlier where I think the victim didn't engage the cops and ran his own civil case against him instead.
    - CrazyStat 2y ago
      > Has the truth of Wallin's claims actually been established? IIRC that hasn't been done, and if so that case is irrelevant. No, it's absolutely not irrelevant. The court refused to consider whether Wallin's claims were true because it held that they would be criminally defamatory even if true. > In this case, despite Mr. Virtanen’s being one of the highest-profile writers at the country’s largest newspaper, the court concluded that he was not enough of a public figure to justify public interest in his personal conduct. Ms. Wallin’s posts, in other words, were not justifiable, and as a result, it didn’t matter whether her account of their encounter was accurate. “The court will not review whether the statements were true,” the verdict read. In a country where truth is a defense against defamation charges, like the US, the court would have had to have considered whether Wallin's claims were true. Because Sweden does not consider truth a defense Wallin didn't even have the opportunity to present a case for truth.

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)
impossiblefork 2y ago
Probably, but the court that I think would be most likely to rule against it is the ECHR (i.e. the EC court). I believe that the government would have lost if this had been brought to the ECHR.

cess11 2y ago

OK, so it's not actually a big problem. I can't identify the first case, the second sounds like Lamotte, and if so, it's not a journalist but a YouTube beggar catering to a neofascist audience. To me it's obvious that you either ignore or is unaware of constitutional limitations of the criminalisation of defamation, notably in ECHR and three constitutional laws. If you spread defamatory 'truths' in a free speech setting where the victim can defend themselves you'll easily get away with it.

CrazyStat 2y ago
A law can have chilling consequences even if it is not often prosecuted. The New York Times had an article a few years ago about Swedish defamation law in the context of the #MeToo movement, so there’s another example for you. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/15/opinion/cissi-wallin-fredrik-virtanen-metoo-sweden.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/03/15/opinion/cissi...
- cess11 2y ago
  Has the truth of Wallin's claims actually been established? IIRC that hasn't been done, and if so that case is irrelevant. And it's not an article, it's an opinion piece by a person who also claims to have been mistreated by Virtanen and helped spread Wallin's statements about him: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/granskning/ug/reportern-skrev-att-virtanen-kallat-henne-hora-sedan-granskade-hon-honom https://www.svt.se/nyheter/granskning/ug/reportern-skrev-att... Edit: Should probably add that there is very little chilling from our defamation criminalisation, it's commonly used in far right political activism for example. The Lamotte case is an outlier where I think the victim didn't engage the cops and ran his own civil case against him instead.
  - CrazyStat 2y ago
    > Has the truth of Wallin's claims actually been established? IIRC that hasn't been done, and if so that case is irrelevant. No, it's absolutely not irrelevant. The court refused to consider whether Wallin's claims were true because it held that they would be criminally defamatory even if true. > In this case, despite Mr. Virtanen’s being one of the highest-profile writers at the country’s largest newspaper, the court concluded that he was not enough of a public figure to justify public interest in his personal conduct. Ms. Wallin’s posts, in other words, were not justifiable, and as a result, it didn’t matter whether her account of their encounter was accurate. “The court will not review whether the statements were true,” the verdict read. In a country where truth is a defense against defamation charges, like the US, the court would have had to have considered whether Wallin's claims were true. Because Sweden does not consider truth a defense Wallin didn't even have the opportunity to present a case for truth.