Response to interpellation 2023/24:534 on the government's view on freedom of expression
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
I believe that freedom of expression is a democratic cornerstone 1, but that it can be restricted by law to balance against opposing interests such as the right to privacy 1. I want to safeguard free opinion formation and provocative views 1, but argue that freedom of expression does not protect actions such as roadblocks 2. I believe that denial of the Holocaust requires legislation 2 and that one must react when actions encroach on other freedoms 2 3. I argue that one is working to strengthen the free word 4 and that the foreign espionage act is not intended to affect journalists 5. MP argues that the starting point should be that expressions are legal 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Madam Speaker! Rasmus Ling has asked me if I will take back my statement that freedom of expression is to the highest degree a result of what happens outside our own borders. Rasmus Ling has also asked if I will take any initiatives to strengthen freedom of expression and if I, within my area of responsibility, will ensure that students' freedom of expression and freedom of association will also be protected in the future. Finally, Rasmus Ling has asked if I will work to ensure that freedom of expression remains intact and exists on the same terms for foreign citizens as for Swedish citizens as well in the future.
Free expression of opinion constitutes one of the cornerstones of democracy. Freedom of expression, which has a long tradition and a strong position in Sweden, is therefore established in Sweden's fundamental laws. Each individual is guaranteed, towards the public, a freedom to provide information and express thoughts, opinions, and feelings on subjects that each individual chooses themselves.
The constitutional protection for freedom of expression is extensive on good grounds, even if it is not absolute. I will always stand up for and defend the free formation of opinion. This also includes protecting the right to have an open discussion about what freedom of expression entails and what conflicts of objectives may exist. We must dare to talk about what we want to protect and why, and we must accept that freedom of expression has limits and is influenced by other opposing interests.
Freedom of expression can be restricted by law. Such restrictions have also been made, for example, through criminal provisions on hate speech, unlawful threats, and defamation. There are also international conventions that Sweden has acceded to, for example, the UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and regulations within EU law that Sweden needs to follow, for example, the European Convention and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The European Convention on Human Rights applies as law in Sweden. These regulatory frameworks require that states shall satisfy the interest of balance between different opposing interests, for example, between the freedoms of expression and the right to respect for private and family life.
The government wants to safeguard a strong and free society where people shall be able to live, move, and act freely within the boundaries of the law. At the same time, individuals and groups can exploit our extensive freedom of speech to create unrest, spread hate, and destabilize Swedish society. Not being able to discuss the conflicts of interest that can arise and not being able to hold two thoughts in one's head at the same time would not only be a betrayal of the population that places its trust in the Riksdag and the government, but also a mark of poverty for the socio-political debate.
My areas of responsibility as Minister for Culture include, among others, media, culture, and democracy. Freedom of expression is a fundamental factor for the activities conducted within these areas. Strengthening the activities within the Ministry for Culture's area therefore also means safeguarding and strengthening freedom of expression. This can, for example, involve continuously reviewing the design of cultural policy in order to strengthen artistic freedom, supporting news coverage throughout the country via media support, or working for a robust and independent public service.
Questions regarding supporting freedom of expression and freedom of association that fall within my area also apply to students. More detailed questions within the framework of the area of higher education and research are, however, best directed to Minister Persson.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! I thank Minister Parisa Liljestrand for the answer. Of course, all ministerial posts in a government are important, but if I were to rank them, I would say that the minister responsible for democracy is one of the absolutely most important. I am missing answers to some of the questions I have asked, and I am a little concerned about that. But now we have the opportunity to bring clarity to this.
The importance of freedom of speech cannot be overstated. Unfortunately, there are many societies without freedom of speech around the world, and they are not democratic societies. Safeguarding the free word should be every democracy minister's most important task. It is from this perspective that I have posed my questions.
As the Minister for Culture says, freedom of expression is not absolute. There are limitations, and there are also conflicts of objectives. But the starting point should be that expressions are legal and that restrictions can then be made, but it is not a starting point that they should be approved.
One of the questions I did not receive an answer to concerns the rights of non-citizens, and there are discussions about whether these individuals should be able to be deported if expressions are made that in different ways cause offense. This was not touched upon at all in the answer, so I pose my question again. I know that the responsibility for migration lies with another minister. But the Minister for Culture is also responsible for democracy, so will she work to ensure that freedom of speech remains intact even for foreign citizens? I request an answer to that question, Madam Speaker.
I also raised the issue of students' freedom of expression. During the autumn, there was a heated discussion, and at Chalmers in Gothenburg, it was decided for a period that students should not be allowed to poster, express opinions, and so on. Is this something the Minister for Democracy will oppose if it becomes relevant again?
Madam Speaker! Perhaps the most important question for me was the statement the Minister for Culture made in Svenska Dagbladet regarding the fact that freedom of expression is to a large extent a result of what happens outside our borders. What was intended by this? I can guess, but I believe it is better that Parisa Liljestrand describes it in her own words.
We have had noted cases of Quran burnings, and last winter a doll of Turkey's president Erdogan was hung. Other things have also caused great uproar in the world. Recently, there have been statements regarding the terrorist organization Hamas which have rightly caused disgust but at the same time have been within the framework of what is permitted according to law.
Madam Speaker! I yield to Parisa Liljestrand to explain what she intended by her statement that freedom of expression is to a large extent a result of what happens outside our borders.
Ulrik Nilsson (M)
Madam Speaker! Freedom of expression is something we all cherish, and it is also the first of the freedoms mentioned in Chapter 2 of the Instrument of Government. The method of freedom of expression is open debate and the substantive exchange of opinions, because that is how it is advanced.
Sometimes one reaches a point where arguments run thin, but before I proceed on that track, one should mention an additional basic premise: that freedoms apply as long as they do not infringe upon someone else's freedom. If I choose, as an extension of an argument in the name of freedom of speech, to take an action or a measure that risks harming someone else, I have crossed a line where freedom of speech has become something else. An example of that is those who block roads, and this morning the entrance to the Riksdag building was blocked in an action. Furthermore, we have Quran burnings and other things.
This is a byproduct of a debate where one perceives that they have not been heard for their arguments and then changes the method of argumentation. This has a connection to freedom of speech, but it is not necessary to say that it is permissible to trample on someone else's freedom with the support of the principle of freedom of speech.
A balance needs to be struck here, and I think it is important to say that freedom of expression shall remain untouched – one must be able to discuss and evaluate everything – but it is not certain that every action one wants to take to draw attention can be justified on the basis of freedom of expression.
Another question posed in the interpellation concerns the denial of the Holocaust. Here we reach the intersection with another piece of legislation, namely the EU's racism framework, which requires that there should be legislation against this. We have previously thought that the legislation that exists regarding hate speech against a group should suffice. But obviously, the EU does not think so, so then we have to include it. I am not sure that it restricts freedom of speech for many, as it is very few who would argue from the standpoint that the Holocaust did not occur.
Madam Speaker! The most important thing is to say that freedom of expression should extend far, but freedom of expression in itself does not provide protection for actions that restrict the freedom of others.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Madam Speaker! I believe we agree that freedom of expression is a cornerstone of a democratic society, and we need to safeguard this freedom every day. It is and shall be permitted to express even those opinions that others may perceive as provocative or offensive. But that does not mean that everything is permitted. There are limits to which expressions are accepted in a democratic society, and an example of such expressions is hate speech against a population group.
We must dare to talk about what it is we want to protect and why, and we must accept that freedom of expression has limits and that it is also affected by opposing interests. We must be able to discuss the society we have today and also dare to discuss freedom of expression in relation to it. This means talking about rights and obligations based on our constitutional laws and other legislation, but also in international obligations regarding human rights. It is therefore difficult to discuss specifically freedom of expression without a context, because we are part of a surrounding world. One example is that the European Court of Human Rights' interpretation of the European Convention's provisions on freedom of expression affects us. Denial of the Holocaust is one example, but there are more.
Rasmus Ling has asked me if I will take back my statement. I have no intention of taking it back, because I believe that if one safeguards freedom of speech, one must be able to both see and talk about the conflicting goals that exist.
I perceive the question regarding foreign citizens as being linked to the investigation on stricter requirements for an honest way of life and increased opportunities for the revocation of residence permits that has recently been commissioned. More specific questions on that are best directed to Minister Malmer Stenergard.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! Of course there are conflicts of objectives. Of course there are limits to freedom of speech – we have hate speech against a population group, defamation, threats and so on. My point, Madam Speaker, is that we must be extremely careful with the restrictions we place on freedom of speech. We must also stop sometimes and see if the restrictions we have made are still the ones we want and not just thumb over this and move on to the next restriction.
Now we have a proposal, which has been the subject of an investigation, to deny that the Holocaust and other recognized genocides have taken place. There was a consensus in the investigation. The Government has sent the proposal to the Council on Legislation, and a government bill will come, I assume. Then we will have to take a position on whether it is another example or if it is something we should consider. It is something that the Riksdag will eventually have to take a position on. That we have made restrictions is not in itself an argument for making further restrictions, but we must be extremely careful when we do so.
Madam Speaker! Another piece of legislation that is being reviewed in an investigation – it is, however, at the Ministry of Justice; I am aware of that – is the Public Order Act, where the police may potentially be given the opportunity to say no in the granting of permits for demonstrations if they threaten the country's security. It does not seem as if there is a majority in the chamber to make such a change, Madam Speaker, but that is, of course, something to be seen in the future.
I think there are reasons to discuss even such a question, even though it is under investigation. If one were to make such a change, it would have the consequence that foreign powers and other regimes, other countries' governments, could use it as a means of pressure. As long as we have a system where media, citizens, and others can make statements within the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech without political involvement or government involvement, one can refer to that, but if one introduces a mechanism where the police can say no, one can no longer say that we have no control over this. It will create increased pressure from abroad, and then more dangerous situations can arise, or situations where Sweden and the Swedish government are pressured to stifle free speech and to say no to demonstrations. It is a dangerous development, Madam Speaker.
I received an answer to the question of whether the Minister for Culture and Democracy is prepared to withdraw the statement. She is not; that was clear. However, I do not think I received a sufficient answer as to what the meaning actually was. Is the fact that there is an outside world pressing Sweden in itself an argument for us to change? Should we make changes to our freedom of speech legislation to accommodate other countries? I really do not think so. If that was what the Minister for Culture and Democracy meant, I actually become worried, Madam Speaker.
Ulrik Nilsson (M)
Madam Speaker! Imagine if, instead of becoming upset over the Quran burnings, we could have all said: "Oh, what a pity that you ran out of arguments, that you had to resort to that type of action because you could no longer manage to debate the issue!" Then I think we might have seen this a bit differently.
It is actually this that it is about. It is also this that is the cornerstone of what I am saying: Freedom of speech, the debate, shall be free and open, but when actions begin to encroach on other freedoms, it is time to start considering reacting to the encroachment on others' freedoms themselves. If it is disturbing the peace and if it leads to riots because of it – yes, then perhaps there are reasons to consider.
To answer Rasmus Ling here, I would say that it is clear that no one actually wants us to carry out measures in Sweden that threaten the country's security. But in that case, we need to assess that question very carefully. What is it that threatens the country's security? It might not be so many demonstrations that do it, but if someone does, it would be quite irresponsible to allow it, because it restricts all Swedes' freedom when security is threatened.
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank you for my part in the debate. I think it is an important area. The upholding of freedom of speech is extremely important, but also to actually call it the right things.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Madam Speaker! I must begin by saying that I am somewhat surprised by the member's perception of what he believes he knows I think. I turn against the image that the member seems to have of the government taking restrictions on freedom of expression lightly and that I and the government are looking for ways to limit people's freedoms. It is really not about that.
My starting point is that we must be able to ensure the degree of freedom and democracy in our country moving forward, and to do that we cannot have a simplified debate. It is not black or white. There are conflicting goals, and we must dare to talk about them. I will always stand up for and safeguard freedom of speech, and also the principle that freedom of speech entails in a democracy.
As Minister for Culture, I work actively to, among other things, strengthen freedom of speech. This is part of my daily tasks. Freedom of expression is a fundamental factor within media, culture, national minorities, and democracy work. All of that is on my desk and within my area. By strengthening it, we also further strengthen and safeguard freedom of expression.
It can look different. It can be about, as I mentioned earlier, reviewing the design of cultural policy to strengthen artistic freedom. It can be to support independent and free journalism. It can be to ensure that there is news coverage throughout the country. It can be to ensure that we have a strong and independent public service. I have also recently received a memorandum with proposals for a time-limited digital development support for magazines that conduct in-depth social and news journalism and which aims to increase media diversity.
These are just some of the ways in which I have worked, and will also actively continue to work, to strengthen freedom of speech within my area of responsibility.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! All the things that Parisa Liljestrand raises, I think are important; I can absolutely agree with those. They are things to strengthen media presence, improve artists' conditions and so on. They are good things, and I am happy about that. I am happy about this discussion. Questions about freedom of expression and the legislation itself and the conditions for it are important to discuss. I am happy that we can have such a discussion, even though I, as I have said, Madam Speaker, am concerned about some of the answers.
When I listen to Member Nilsson, I get almost the feeling that that which causes offense and that someone might get angry about should be restricted. I did not interpret the government that way, which I am glad about, but what the member said went in that direction, and if so, it is worrying.
Madam Speaker! I will have time for a concluding question concerning the legislation on foreign espionage that the Riksdag passed a little over a year ago, in the autumn of 2022. Many at that time warned that this would have a major impact on freedom of expression and that media would come to limit themselves and engage in self-censorship and the like, simply because there was a threat that one could be punished in this way.
Since some time has now passed, I would like to ask, Madam Speaker, whether the government has any intention of evaluating the law in the future to see if the fears that existed have materialized or if there was no basis for such concern.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Madam Speaker! I begin where Member Ling finished, that is, the law on foreign espionage which was adopted just over a year ago. That legislation is an example of a law being introduced with a very clear wording that it is not intended to affect journalists' work and their right to be able to perform it. The law is not intended to hit journalists, and both the government and the Riksdag have been clear about this in the drafting of the legislation.
Thus, my view is also that the legislation should function without being restrictive for the media. The media are needed, after all. They need to be a free and independent force for a democratic society to function.
Freedom of expression has a long tradition and a strong position in Sweden. Free formation of opinion is one of the cornerstones of democracy. That is why I have said that freedom of expression is extensive on good grounds. It does not only protect opinions that are pleasant and desirable but also, and perhaps primarily, opinions that can provoke indignation, offense, and questioning. It should be able to do that. We should be able to tolerate it in an open society. But we must also be able to accept that freedom of expression has limits.
As I have said, I will always stand up to safeguard freedom of speech. However, that also includes that we must be able to have an open discussion about what freedom of speech entails and what conflicts of objectives exist. I welcome such a discussion.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.