Comment by CrazyStat
1 year ago
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.
TFA argues that the harm done by defamation through the spreading of true statements should be punishable.
Cases where the truth of the defamatory statements cannot be determined are out of scope. However, such harm would reasonably be covered by the same line of argument.
In some situations swedish courts have to consider the truth of the statements in defamation cases. The regulation is much more sophisticated and detailed than you seem to think.