A purposeful protection for freedom of the press and freedom of expression (pending constitutional proposals, etc.)

Peter Hedberg (S)

A purposeful protection for freedom of the press and freedom of expression (pending constitutional proposal, etc.)

Madam Speaker! Today we are dealing with the pending constitutional proposal A purposeful protection for freedom of the press and freedom of expression. Initially, I would like to move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

When the Riksdag first considered the matter in May 2022, my party, the Social Democrats, the Left Party, the Liberals, and the Green Party submitted a joint reservation. It concerned the protection of personal integrity in relation to the search databases' ability to provide sensitive information to the general public. This can involve previous judgments but also, as recently rewritten, psychiatric compulsory care and substance abuse problems.

Madam Speaker! A substantive debate was conducted in this chamber. Each party accounted for how they reasoned regarding the current government's proposal.

It was pointed out by those who did not wish to endorse the government's proposal in this regard that the proposed provisions would be vague and difficult to interpret. Reference was also made to referral bodies that rejected the proposal on precisely these grounds. It is admittedly a fully acceptable objection, but as our Social Democratic representative in the spring debate, Per-Arne Håkansson, pointed out, the development in this area has turned out to go in precisely the alarming direction that KU warned against as early as 2003.

Today, sensitive personal data is provided online in a way that most of us see as deeply problematic. The government's proposal this spring was an attempt to address the problem after years of investigations and discussions. Initially, there was actually a consensus across party lines, at least as expressed in the 2018 parliamentary committee on freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

Madam Speaker! The situation is as it is, and we have a pending constitutional proposal to take a stand on. We Social Democrats have submitted a special statement in the committee, in which we emphasize our fundamental position that the previous government's bill should have been approved in its entirety. We are, however, not prepared to reject the entire constitutional proposal based on this.

However, there is a large cloud of concern ahead. The fundamental problem regarding personal privacy remains. A review in the European Court of Justice regarding the Swedish constitutional exception and its compatibility with GDPR could have unforeseen consequences for Swedish freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

This is complex matter, and I can state, Madam Speaker, that the newly appointed government will most likely need to handle this issue during the current mandate period. We Social Democrats hope that the Minister for Justice will return with a proposal that addresses the issue.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Susanne Nordström (M)

Madam Speaker! I shall highlight another matter in this proposal.

Sometimes I watch TV, and one thing that has struck me is that since the turn of the millennium, programs of a more degrading character have flourished. Even violations may not have been the main focus, but they still had a strong element. Fortunately, I find the off-button easily, but those who are in these programs, as it were, have no off-button.

Let's say that someone participating in a Swedish TV program would be grossly defamed. What can that person do then? Well, if the program is broadcast from Sweden, there are good opportunities to have one's case legally examined. But – and this is what the proposal is about, Madam Speaker – if the program is broadcast in a Swedish medium via satellite and with a strong Swedish connection, and where only certain provisions in the Freedom of the Press Act are applicable, it can be difficult, yes almost impossible, to hold someone accountable in Sweden for a criminal statement.

The host of TV3's program Insider was sued in a private prosecution for gross defamation. After a rather long process through the Swedish judicial instances, the case was finally taken to the European Court of Human Rights, which stated that the program, regardless of the fact that it was broadcast from England, was entirely Swedish in its nature, meaning that the language, content, production, meaning, and the Swedish advertisements were intended for the Swedish market.

It is in no way good to have to turn to a foreign court, or for that matter the European Court of Human Rights, in such a case to have one's case examined. Therefore, a constitutional amendment was needed to ensure an examination in Sweden.

In the proposal, the territorial scope of the Freedom of Expression Act is expanded to include certain satellite broadcasts of programs that are currently considered to originate from abroad but which have a very strong Swedish connection.

With these words, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! Previous members have accounted for this matter in this debate. It is a dormant constitutional matter. It is such as we are handling today, quite simply.

Just as previous members have accounted for, the proposals are based on a parliamentary investigation, the 2018 Freedom of the Press and Expression Committee, which was almost unanimous on all proposals.

That is how we usually prepare amendments to our constitutional laws. We investigate thoroughly, preferably in an inquiry where all parties have representatives. The government receives the inquiry, and then a so-called referral process takes place where anyone, but especially the relevant referral bodies, are invited to submit their views. After that, the government usually processes and analyzes all views before submitting its legislative proposal, i.e., the proposition, to the Riksdag.

In this matter, the committee said no to limiting the constitutional protection for certain search services. It was an announcement and was not in the commission's proposal. Vänsterpartiet did not share the committee majority's proposal in this part, but we had a joint reservation with Socialdemokraterna, Miljöpartiet, and Liberalerna.

In such a case, one must either reject the entire matter or approve it. We have therefore landed on a special statement, just like the other parties who had a reservation last time, because we are not prepared to reject this entire matter, even though we are critical of just this part. We believe that the proposal of the single investigation should have been adopted.

Madam Speaker! Saving information is an important part of our information society, especially as we live in an increasingly digital world. Information is needed in a lot of different areas, but there are also regulations on how data may be stored, how it should be saved, and how it may be used. Among other things, GDPR addresses this.

The Court of Justice of the EU concluded about eight years ago that individuals have the right to be forgotten by search engines. Individuals should have the opportunity to regain control over which pieces of information circulate in digital channels and on websites. Search services with a publishing license can publish personal data regarding, for example, law violations. Many citizens may experience this type of search service as an invasion of privacy, and the question of the right for individuals to be forgotten is also often highlighted. This right does not, however, apply to search services with a publishing license.

This is one of the things that we were critical of in our reservation. We believe that this needs to be changed in order to be able to protect people's privacy better than today.

As is so often the case when it concerns the constitution, it is a matter of a balance. Our freedom and rights to access public information stand against the protection of personal privacy.

This issue has been investigated several times without proposals being submitted to the Chamber that have won favor and approval. Just as the Social Democratic member notes, we observe that the issue will return and that it is not "optional." Otherwise, unfortunately, the EU will step in and regulate this for us. We therefore believe that a certain limitation should be made in the constitutional protection, but that it must never be more extensive than necessary. In this specific case, however, a limitation was needed that is compatible with the precautionary principle that is usually applied. But we also safeguard people's privacy and the right to be forgotten.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! My colleagues have accounted well for the matter and its development, so I will focus on the Liberals' view on the question of specifically search services.

For liberals, freedom of speech is important. It is important to safeguard and to continue to safeguard through the special protection that the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression ensure in situations where strong freedom of speech interests are at stake.

At the same time, the fundamental purpose of personal data regulation is to protect individuals' personal privacy when their personal data is processed. When it comes to the disclosure of certain particularly privacy-sensitive personal data, including information regarding political or religious views as well as health and sex life, the media laws contain provisions for exceptions from the constitutionally protected area, which means that personal data regulation can still be applied to some extent. But no corresponding exception exists for data regarding law violations.

The EU's data protection regulation contains provisions aimed at protecting personal privacy regarding the processing of personal data concerning criminal offenses. Such personal data may only be processed under the control of an authority or when processing is permitted under Union law or the national law of the Member States, where appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of the data subjects are established. A complete register of convictions in criminal cases may therefore only be maintained under the control of an authority.

The Liberals would have liked to see that the protection of personal privacy was strengthened by introducing limitations in the constitutional protection for certain search services that disclose personal data regarding law violations. We do not, however, see that this means we will reject the constitutional proposal in its entirety, and therefore we will approve it. We have also submitted a separate statement with our views.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! It was not my intention to occupy the House's time in this debate, but I feel that certain clarifications may need to be made, especially after the portrayal of our position during the spring's handling of this matter that the previous speaker gave.

We noted, after having seen the referral bodies' views on the part of the constitutional changes concerning search services with protection of publication evidence, that the criticism was heavy. It concerned that the opening one wanted to create in our constitutions in order to be able to regulate and limit this in ordinary law risked becoming too large. An opening that is too large in our constitutions leaves room for temporary expressions of opinion in this parliament to go too far, regulate too much and claim too large a share of our democratic freedoms and rights. It is heavy referral criticism from heavy referral bodies.

Against this background, we said that this must be looked at again, and we sent a clear signal about that to the then Social Democratic government. But during the time the issue was being prepared in the Government Offices, no concrete changes were returned to address the criticism from the referral bodies. There were many conversations and discussions, all of which aimed at us understanding the point of ignoring the referral criticism and proceeding with the submitted proposal. We chose, however, to listen to the criticism, because ultimately the purpose must be to safeguard our fundamental democratic freedoms and rights, not to open them up to greater risks.

Madam Speaker! That was the background, and that was why we chose not to proceed with this and had a committee majority behind us in that regard.

But the sequence does not end here. We will need to continue to deliberate on this issue, because just as previous speakers have said, this is not optional. We need to meet the requirements for conformity with GDPR, i.e., the EU directive that exists regarding personal privacy and personal data.

We do not regret this in any way but look forward to it, and we want to see continued efforts to address this. But precisely the legal model that was chosen in this case and the formulations in the delegation provision that would have implied approval in this regard, we could not stand behind because they risked becoming too extensive.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)