Sweden has a long - and strong - tradition and the world's
first freedom of the press laws came in Sweden in 1766. But now the old
laws are challenged. One reason is technological. In Sweden a public debate is going on regarding whether a change is needed or not. Read more about the history and some parts of the debate.
Technology puts pressure on Swedish press laws
Is misuse more important than rights?
Continued weak support for freedom of the press and freedom of expression in Swedish parliament
Read more about the background of the freedom of press in Sweden here:
Freedom of expression and freedom of the press in Sweden
About the principle of public access
Freedom of expression
Technology puts pressure on Swedish press laws
By Per Hultengård, Director of Legal and Political Affairs, Swedish Newspaper Publishers' Association
Those who want to
change the special constitutional laws on freedom of the press and
freedom of expression argue that the legislation should become
independent of technique, in contrast to present regulation, where
applicability is dependent on the technique that is used (print, radio,
database, technical recordings, etc.). The advantage of present
regulation is that one never has to make any subjective considerations
as to whether something that has been expressed should or should not be
covered by the legislation. Instead
the criteria that are used are strictly formal and objective. It also
makes it possible to have a single responsible publisher for all
content that is published and to have a system where informants to the
media cannot be subject to liability. The critics also maintain that it
is an imperfection that the present system excludes oral expressions
that are made directly (theatres, speakers corners, interactive
services, chats, discussion groups, etc.), where someone can have a
direct influence on what is being said (which is impossible because the
system with a responsible publisher cannot be maintained). The critics
also claim that the present regulation is too detailed, which is a
complication when something should be changed due to the special
procedure for changes to constitutional matters. From a European
perspective, Sweden is quite unique to have such detailed regulation on
a constitutional level, which sometimes makes it complicated to be a
member of the European Union, as the Swedish negotiators quite often
have to ensure that exceptions are made for Sweden due to possible
conflicts between proposed EU legislation and Swedish legislation, but
then compromise on other matters.
The proposed alternatives are:
(1) Abolish the two constitutional laws on freedom of the press
and freedom of expression, and let the mass media rely on the general
protection for freedom of expression in the fundamental constitution
and the European Convention of Human Rights;
(2) Abolish the two constitutional laws on freedom of the press
and freedom of expression, but insert a mass media chapter with some
fundamental principles in the fundamental constitution;
(3) Merge the two constitutional laws into a single law without any major changes. A fourth alternative that has also been discussed is to keep things the way they are.
Is misuse more important than rights?
From an article by Bo Strömstedt, appearing on Expressen's culture page, 22 October 2007
"And isn't the primary objective of the Freedom of Press Act
to establish the right to express oneself, not to agonize over the risk
of misuse? If a few roof tiles fall off a building, tearing up the
foundation would be considered a dubious method." "That
in the new society to find opportunities to preserve, and perhaps even
strengthen the law that over the centuries has contributed to creating
the open Swedish society must be the duty of the legislators." "Freedom
of religion was also won in battle with the authoritarian society. One
hundred years hasn't yet passed since a school teacher risked his
entire means of support if he did not interpret the Bible in the same
way as the headmaster. Freedom of religion is not a gift from the
state. It has been won by the citizenry." "The
freedom of religion entails the right to practice one's religion to the
extent that it does not injure others. But freedom of religion closely
parallels freedom of expression. It is my right to exercise my
religion, but it is also your right to initiate discussion about my
religion."
From an editorial that appeared in Dagens Nyheter, 18 November 2007
"There is currently a general perception that freedom of the
press is a constitutional privilege for reporters. They can write
articles that are spread to thousands of people without risking
imprisonment, even when their articles contain errors. But
the purpose of this freedom of the press is not to give journalists
legal advantages, but rather to safeguard the general public's right to
be informed.
"Freedom of the press is thus intended to open society and to
counteract the concentration of power. From an international
perspective, it is a unique construction, and better insurance against
corruption would probably be difficult to create."
Continued weak support for freedom of the press and freedom of expression in Swedish parliament
Many members of parliament can imagine limiting freedom of the press and freedom of expression. This
was revealed in an SIFO (Swedish Institute of Public Opinion Research)
survey that the Swedish Newspaper Publishers' Association commissioned
in 2006. The same survey has been conducted anew and the results are
disheartening even if some improvements have occurred. In individual
issues, many members of parliament are increasingly prepared to reduce
openness, and implement bans and restrictions. The new
survey was conducted in the summer of 2007 and 227 members of
parliament responded. Some of the results of the survey include the
following (results from 2006 are in brackets): - 59%
(89%) of the surveyed members of parliament feel that individual police
officers' legal right to publish information should be limited.
- 55% (74%) feel that a law should be enacted that limits the media's opportunities to cover famous persons.
- 55% (68%) feel that damages as a result of legal proceedings should
be dramatically increased in cases related to freedom of the press and
freedom of expression.
- 60% (72%) want to introduce rules for financial defamation so that
businesses and other organisations would be able to claim damages from
the media.
- 81% (84%) feel that it is good that the media cannot access passport and driving license photos. "It
is frightening that so many members of parliament do not understand how
important freedom of the press and freedom of expression are for an
open democratic society," says Peo Wärring, chairman of the Swedish
Newspaper Publisher's Association.
Source: Swedish Newspaper Publishers' Association
Background: Freedom of expression and freedom of the press in Sweden
The basic principles for freedom of expression and freedom of the press are the following:
- Freedom of establishment:
Every Swedish citizen has the right to start a printed newspaper if it
has authorisation to publish and an individual responsible by law for
what is printed. The state shall also strive to restrict radio frequencies to those who promote freedom of expression and information.
- Pre-censorship ban: Every form of preliminary examination of printed material is forbidden, as is the obstruction of its printing or distribution.
- Protection of anonymity and sources:
The identity of persons who provide information to a news outlet is
protected and all media workers have the right to anonymity. State and local government organs are forbidden to search for the identities
of people who provide information to the media. Similar protections exist in several EU countries. - Responsibility rules:
Every publication and every television and radio programme must have a
person responsible by law. This individual, not the person who wrote or
produced the item, can be made responsible for its content.
- Legal procedures:
Unauthorised statements or unauthorised publication of information that
implies a breach of national security, breaches of law and order,
defamation of individuals, etc., are to be dealt with by the courts.
Offences are listed in
an Act and no other offences can be prosecuted. - The principle of public access: A
vital principle in the freedom of the press legislation is the
principle of public access to official information. This was unique
when it entered into Swedish law in 1766 and remains singular in
international comparison. It implies that all documentation kept by the
authorities must be accessible to the public, including databases and
similar technological or electronic documents.
Source: Swedish Institute fact sheet about Swedish mass media
Swedish mass media, by Swedish Institute: http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/FactSheet____15670.aspx
Background: About the principle of public access
By Per Hultengård, Director of Legal and Political Affairs, Swedish Newspaper Publishers' Association
Several years ago, a Swedish newspaper reporter walked into the
EU Commission in Brussels and asked to read the mail that had arrived
that day for the commission's chairman. He was not permitted to do so. He
was instead met by an attitude of incomprehension and suspicion, and
was more or less thrown out of the office. What nerve! What insolence!
To walk in here and demand to root through the chairman's mail! It
is different in Sweden. Here, everyone is entitled to read the mail of
the prime minister or of anyone else in a position of power. In Sweden,
insight and the principle of public access prevail. At least that's what we would like to believe. "Every
Swedish citizen shall be entitled to have free access to official
documents, in order to encourage the free exchange of opinion and the
availability of comprehensive information." This
is from the introduction to chapter 2 of the Freedom of Press Act,
which stipulates the rules for the principle of public access. It is a
grand proclamation and an excellent start to the chapter about public
access. Let's take it a piece at a time: first of all, one wants to encourage the free exchange of opinion,
or in other words, that all citizens shall be able to take part in open
and free discussion, without restrictions. Secondly, one wants to encourage... the availability of comprehensive information,
or in other words, that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be
informed, have knowledge, know and understand. These are the goals. The agent for attaining these goals is openness
- the right to access official documents. This is a right that we all
have as citizens. The principle of public access is important for
newspapers and other media, but it is not an exclusive right of the
media. It is a citizen's right - a right for you or me, and everyone
else. What does the principle of public access mean in
practice? It means that we are entitled to read the documents of
governmental authorities and administrations. This applies both to
documents that someone has sent to an authority and documents that an
authority has created itself. These can be letters, decisions, minutes
of meetings, rulings, proposals, reports and so forth.
But not everything is accessible. There may be information in a
document that is confidential. For example, it can be a matter of
information that is sensitive to someone's personal integrity or
information that concerns business or military secrets.
Nonetheless, it is important to keep in mind that just because a
document includes confidential information this does not mean that the
entire document is classed confidential. We still have the right to
read other parts of the document. Now this may sound
fine, but one might still wonder if all this about insight and public
access is really that important. How does it affect me? The
answer is that the principle of public access can ultimately be said to
be a guarantee for us being able to exercise our civil rights. It is a
matter of legal security. If comparable cases are handled differently
or if other incorrect decisions are made, this will be come to light if
activities are conducted openly. It is also a guarantee for efficiency
in governmental organisations. Lethargy, inefficiency, unfairness and
corruption are counteracted if the public has insight and can see how
work is conducted. But above all, openness promotes
democracy. It provides objective information about governmental
authorities and public services. Many authorities willingly release
huge amounts of information about their work in slick brochures. But
this doesn't have anything to do with the principle of public access.
The principle involves something more, namely that we decide ourselves
- independently of authorities' official releases of information - what
we want to see. But openness and public access cannot be
reduced to a few flowery words and visions unless they also have
real-world impact. On paper, we in Sweden have tremendously strong
legislation for public access. But during the past years, we've
increasingly had reason to often feel concern with developments that
have instead been characterised by increased introversion and secrecy. The
Official Secrets Act is constantly growing. As an example, information
from the passport and driving license registry that was previously
accessible to the public is now as good as inaccessible. But above all,
one can see a tangible change in attitude among the executing
authorities and courts when they make decisions on whether documents
can be released. Understanding of the significance of the principle of
public access and insight is declining and secrecy considerations are
instead being prioritised. This is an attitude that is completely
contrary to the fundamental idea behind the principle of public access.
It is therefore high time that we - both as citizens and
members of the media - raise objections and assert our rights. The
authorities gather and produce enormous amounts of information and make
countless decisions, large and small, that directly or indirectly
affect us as citizens - everything from decisions about refuse
collection fees to how a new motorway will be routed. If
we have insight into these processes, we can gain knowledge and
participate in the public debate, make our voices heard, express our
opinions and influence the society we live in.
Knowledge provides power and influence. This is why the principle
of public access is important. It is ours. We have the right to know.
Background: Freedom of expression
By Per Hultengård, Director of Legal and Political Affairs, Swedish Newspaper Publishers' Association
It is often said that people think most about freedom of
expression and feel most strongly for it just after it has been won or
just after it has been lost. As long as people have freedom of
expression, it is taken for granted. In Sweden, we have a
long tradition of both freedom of expression and freedom of the press,
both as citizens and as members of the mass media. We can say, write,
send and express just about anything. Freedom of expression and freedom
of the press should not just protect that which is conventional,
uncontroversial, harmless, politically correct and that which most
people feel is perfectly acceptable. The chief strength of these
freedoms is that they even protect the unconventional, the
controversial, the politically incorrect and that which the majority of
people find appalling. All this has a price, which in individual cases
can be shockingly high. But we pay this price so that freedom of
expression and freedom of the press will remain strong when they are
needed the most. This does not mean that everything is
acceptable, but crimes relating to misuse of freedom of the press and
freedom of expression are few. The majority of these breeches concern
assorted infringements on national security. In addition to this, it is
forbidden to engage in incitement to racial hatred, incitement to
crime, descriptions of illegal violence, slander or libel. But
such expressions can also be permissible. What one person perceives as
slander can be of sufficient importance or of sufficient interest to
the general public that it can be defensible. Even such that turns out
to be untrue can be permissible if everything pointed to it being true
upon publication. Freedom of expression is far-reaching,
but for it to stay that way, we have to handle it with care. The
general public's Press Ombudsman and the Press Council - which receive
reports and examine complaints from the public filed against that which
is published in newspapers and magazines - is the branch's own system
for ethics. Additionally, at individual newspapers and magazines, there
are codes of conduct and principles that apply for each publication. It
is a matter of weighing the self-evident duty of relating every type of
news against not subjecting people's names and reputations to publicity
that can be perceived as offensive. This is not an easy thing to do.
Some feel that newspapers, magazines and other media are overly
restrained, while others feel that they go too far. But ethics is
ultimately not something one regulates; it requires taking a personal
stand. The media's activities are protected in special
constitutional law. The Freedom of Press Act applies for printed
publications, and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression, applies
for other media, such as radio, television and newspaper websites. In
international comparison, these constitutional laws are rather unique.
Contrary to what is the case in many other countries, freedom of the
press and freedom of expression are not stipulated in vague, general
terms. Their strength is in safeguarding every aspect of the exercise
of freedom of the press and freedom of expression in detail - from
someone getting an idea about something that he or she feels needs to
be said, to publication. These freedoms protect the gathering of
information, writing of articles, printing, publication, distribution
and broadcasting from interference and they forbid censorship or other
hampering actions from the authorities and public organs. If something
is published or broadcast that is criminal in nature, this is something
that is determined after the fact. We sometimes feel that
freedom of the press is constraining, that the ceiling is low and that
restraints from covering certain topics are the norm. And
unfortunately, this is the way it is at times. Sometimes theory and
reality do not coincide. But those who want to limit the freedom of
expression and certain types of coverage are also usually those who are
afraid of the freedom of expression, afraid of the free exchange of
opinions, afraid of open discussion. We in Sweden are
very privileged, whether we use the freedom of expression directly or
express ourselves through the mass media. In many countries, a system
such as what we have cannot even be imagined. But there
is also danger in that we perceive freedom of the press and freedom of
expression as self-evident; we do not take notice when they begin to be
curtailed. In recent years, we in Sweden have observed clear tendencies
to such limitations and restraints.
This is why it so important that we and you and others who care
about the freedom of expression stand behind it when times are tough,
that we exercise it, express our opinions, say what we think and
believe - that we make our voices heard!
