Comment by impossiblefork
1 year ago
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.
> 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).
>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.
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.
2 replies →
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.
3 replies →
Can you give five examples?
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.
I know nothing of Swedish law, but do these rulings not conflict with Section 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights?
4 replies →
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.
11 replies →