Comment by cess11
1 year ago
TFA is about the situation where something is true. It does not apply in this case.
Wallin has had every opportunity to "present a case for truth" but hasn't, and it's likely impossible to determine since the accusations were brought forward after a very long time. You should also know that Wallin has been harassing public servants because the authorities put down a dog that belonged to a friend of hers.
Here's a better source about the defamation case: https://www.nj.se/nyheter/aven-hovratten-foller-wallin-for-f...
TFA is about defamation being actionable even if the accusation is true. This is exactly the case in Sweden generally and in Wallin’s case specifically. This is the basis on which Wallin’s case was decided. It applies perfectly to Wallin’s case.
I’m not sure why you are bringing up irrelevant facts to make Wallin look bad, so I won’t bother responding to them.
OK, and how do you know that Wallin's accusations are true? Would you mind going to the swedish authorities and present your evidence to them?
It doesn’t matter whether Wallin’s accusations are true. The court said so when they convicted her without considering truth. This is the current state of Swedish defamation law and the policy for which TFA is arguing.
1 reply →