Comment by impossiblefork
1 year ago
Lamotte is a very pure example of a journalist. The fact that he, during the later part of his career has been funded by small donations from the general public is only in his favour. That he worked for a large mass of people is something positive.
The ECHR is great and I believe that both these cases, if the people convicted had sued Sweden in the ECHR, then Sweden would have lost.
However, Swedish law is still Swedish law. Parliament is sovereign and can what it likes, legal as illegal. It'd be great to have an ECHR judgement against Sweden in one of these cases, it would have given weight to the need to change these laws into something with respect for truth, giving us a chance to throw away the tradition of the courts to regard reputation as something belonging to a person, when reputation is other people's beliefs. There should only be protection against reputational harm from falsehoods.
No, he is not. I don't think he's even had "utgivningsbevis" at any point in his career as YouTube beggar. Maybe he got one after he lost the defamation cases, I'm not sure. During this particular criminal venture he didn't even try to protect himself with the formalities around and practices in journalism, so it mostly shows your political sympathies when you claim he was one.
ECHR is applied in swedish courts, it's swedish law and constitutionally limits every other regular law.