Response to interpellation 2023/24:816 on society's preparedness against influence campaigns and misleading information
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns Sweden's preparedness against influence campaigns and misleading information. M argues that Sweden is in a serious security situation and that the Psychological Defence Agency is central to identifying and countering improper information influence from foreign powers 1. M emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between illegal threats and freedom of speech, and warns that authorities must not act as opinion police 2 3 4. S argues that the threat also comes from within, by a party running a troll factory with fake accounts that spread hate and disinformation 5. S questions how the government handles this national threat to democracy 5 6 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)
Madam Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me how I intend to work to strengthen society's preparedness against influence campaigns and misleading information. Eva Lindh has also asked me whether the so-called troll factories have influenced the government's work on preparedness against influence campaigns and misleading information in any particular way.
I share Eva Lindh's assessment that we are in a serious security situation. I also share Eva Lindh's assessment of the importance of strengthening preparedness against influence campaigns and misleading information.
In recent years, not least in light of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it has become clear that we should not underestimate the importance of a readiness to counter improper information influence. This involves, among other things, the ability to identify and counter misleading information spread with the aim of destabilizing and polarizing our societies and thereby risking the undermining of our democratic processes and our democratic decision-making. It is also about increasing the public's awareness of the threats, risks, and vulnerabilities linked to our modern information environment.
In January 2022, just weeks before Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Psychological Defence Agency was established. That Sweden has its own agency entirely focused on strengthening psychological defence is something that distinguishes us globally. Psychological defence constitutes a central part of a credible total defence.
The Swedish Psychological Defence Agency is tasked with identifying, analyzing, and providing support in countering improper information influence and other misleading information directed against Sweden or Swedish interests. The concept of improper information influence implies that it concerns influence from a foreign power. The Swedish Psychological Defence Agency is therefore not tasked with monitoring the domestic debate in Sweden.
The mandate of the Swedish Psychological Defence Authority includes leading the work to coordinate and develop the activities of authorities and other actors within Sweden's psychological defense. Psychological defense is something we build together. In my capacity as Minister for Civil Defence, I have therefore repeatedly over the past year called meetings with a broad circle of heads of authorities to discuss precisely the cooperation between authorities when it comes to handling improper information influence directed towards Sweden. I intend to continue calling these meetings, which I see as very meaningful and important.
Due to the deteriorated security policy situation, an upgrade of the total defense is currently underway. The work to strengthen preparedness against improper information influence constitutes an important part of that work.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! Sweden continues to be in a very serious security situation. Russia is waging war in Europe - just a hundred miles from here, the war in Ukraine is raging. This illegal and internationally unlawful invasion is entering its third year. We know that Russia's ambitions do not stop at Ukraine. More countries are next in line if Ukraine falls.
There are, of course, also other threats out in the world - a restless world. Sweden and Swedish interests continue to be targets for foreign targeted information influence campaigns.
When the world is characterized by unrest, some try to influence the picture of reality and are given a larger space to do so, by misleading with incorrect information or twisting the truth little by little in order to confuse and mislead. The goal is to make us all doubt what is true or not and lose confidence in our society. This is the basis for disinformation and influence campaigns, and it affects us all very much.
An upgrade of both the civil and the military defense is underway; that is good. It is clear that special emphasis is being placed, and needs to be placed, on the preparedness against that which we are speaking about today.
With that introduction and considering that we agree there is a great threat and that we are in a serious situation, it is easy to believe that this only comes from the outside, from foreign powers. But it has become apparent that it also comes from within, from the core of power in our country. When the social program Kalla fakta shows how the Sweden Democrats' party office runs a troll factory with fake accounts, it means that we now know that there are ongoing paid attempts to influence public opinion in Sweden. The method is reminiscent of what we see from Russia, Iran, and China, as well as from extreme groups in various parts of Europe. It means that the situation is serious and the security situation is serious in itself, but this makes it extra serious.
That is why I asked the Minister if the intention is for there to be any specific action even when it concerns what comes from within. Just as the Minister said, much is being done, but the task is not to monitor the domestic debate. My question also concerns exactly this. The situation that prevails now means that the threat also comes from within.
All the uncertainty that the threat and the hatred create, which is paid for by Sweden's second-largest party in any case, affects the security situation for all of us. That is why I ask the question: How does the Minister take into account the international but also the national security situation?
Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)
Madam Speaker! I am not entirely sure that I truly grasp what Eva Lindh is asking about. Is Eva Lindh asking if we should use Swedish authorities to interfere in the free formation of opinion in Sweden? That is my counter-question. That is how I perceive the question, but I want to ensure that it is correctly understood.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! I am somewhat surprised that the Minister describes what the troll factories actually do, namely spreading threats, hate, and disinformation, as free opinion-forming. Is that how the Minister views this? Does he view it in the same way as how Russia and others attempt to use influence campaigns to create uncertainty in the country? I wonder about that. In that case, we have different views on the matter.
I think it is incredibly important with free formation of opinion - that is something we do not disagree on. It is obviously important that we should have the right to speak freely. Freedom of speech and all such things are incredibly important. It is precisely that I want to secure. I want to work so that we continue to stand up for democracy, freedom of speech, and the right to think what one wants.
But it is a completely different matter to spread threats, hate, and disinformation. That threatens freedom of speech, and that is why I asked if the government has been influenced in any way by the knowledge one still has regarding the Sweden Democrats and their so-called troll factories. Has it affected the government's work with the preparedness against influence campaigns and misleading information in any particular way?
It is quite clear that much of what is being spread - I am one of those who has been targeted - comes from fake accounts. But information is also being spread that some, in fact, just as I spoke about, can perceive as something that slowly changes the picture of reality. It is something else, and that is why I wonder what the minister was thinking when he posed his question.
I hope, of course, that Carl-Oskar Bohlin is as upset as I am about what has happened. It is very serious. This situation is a threat to democracy. If the Sverigedemokraterna continue to act in this way, I do not feel particularly secure regarding how election campaigns will function in the future and how democracy is to function. My hope that the Sverigedemokraterna will do something about this is small because, on the one hand, they have denied that it exists and, on the other hand, they have announced that they will continue to work as before.
So it is clear that we must deal with this in some way. I truly find it outrageous. I am seriously concerned about what this means for our democracy and for Sweden.
Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)
Madam Speaker! This is undeniably a serious subject, and it requires all of us to express ourselves with a certain degree of precision and not paint with overly broad brushstrokes and lump different magnitudes together.
Let me start by saying that threats are criminalized. Threats shall be prosecuted by our law enforcement authorities. That is what we have the entire justice system for.
It is a problem that elected representatives, who perform part of the democratic work in Sweden, are subjected to threats. This must naturally be met with the full force of society and be most strongly condemned by the judicial authorities. Hate is also criminalized in certain cases.
But then there is also that which is inappropriate but, for various reasons, should not be illegal. That is when we enter the territory of freedom of speech. That is to say: If we want an order where everything that is offensive or unpleasant should be illegal, we will also have no freedom of speech left. I think it is good to have those boundaries clear for oneself in the discussion.
Then I think one is making a big mistake, regardless of what one thinks of the different parties represented in the Swedish Riksdag, when one lumps these parties together with antagonistic states and their ways of conducting subversion and trying to influence the free formation of opinion in Sweden.
Free expression of opinion must have a large space. But we must also protect ourselves against foreign actors who want to harm Sweden and Swedish interests. It is important to make the distinction between these two, otherwise I believe that we will quite soon find ourselves on a slippery slope.
The counter-question must therefore be: What is it in our legislation that Eva Lindh considers to be insufficient today? What else is it that should be punishable and criminalized? It is this tool we use to address things that we as a society have decided we do not accept, for example threats. It is criminal in the vast majority of cases, and it should be prosecuted by our law enforcement authorities.
There is an undertone in the question. We all agree that what was revealed linked to anonymous accounts and the Sverigedemokraterna is deeply inappropriate. As parties, we have all stated that we believe one should communicate in one's own name. Different parties live up to that to varying degrees, but to say that it should, for example, be criminalized is to go a very long step further.
We get no answer from Eva Lindh here regarding where the Social Democrats draw the line. Do you want to restrict freedom of speech? Do you want to criminalize several types of things that today fall within the framework of free opinion formation and are not criminalized?
I believe it is important to have this clear, because there is an undertone in the question that suggests we should use our authorities to act as opinion police in the Swedish debate. I just want to warn that there are, of course, risks with such a line, namely that we restrict some of the most important freedoms we have in our country.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! Good that I still have two minutes left to say what I think.
I have in no way suggested that I have any clear proposals for legislation or the like. My question was asked against the background that we now know that there are paid fake accounts spreading threats, hate, and misleading information, and I wondered if this in any way affects the government's assessment and if any measures are intended to be taken. That was my question.
We are naturally in agreement that influence campaigns from other countries are not okay. But something I want to convey to Minister Carl-Oskar Bohlin is that it makes a big difference how one expresses oneself and whether one says that one thinks this is okay or not.
I stand up for freedom of speech. It is incredibly important to me. Democracy is incredibly important to me. I believe that it is also important for the Minister of State. Now that democracy is being challenged by threats, hate, and misleading information that comes not only from the outside but also from the inside - and we also know that it is paid for by one of our largest parties in Sweden - it renders, at least for me, a reflection on how we should handle this to defend democracy and stand up for freedom of speech because these phenomena actually threaten it.
My question is, therefore, how one will act or what one plans to do. What is the Minister's view on this? Does he even think that this is a threat to what we have talked about, i.e., our security situation and, above all, freedom of speech and democracy?
Statsrådet Carl-Oskar Bohlin (M)
Madam Speaker! I have already in previous remarks expressed my opinion on the inappropriateness of what Eva Lindh refers to. But one must also, as I mentioned, maintain some kind of consistency when it comes to how one uses the terms.
Threats are criminalized. What do we do then about threats? Yes, we use our law enforcement authorities to prosecute crimes, period. This must naturally continue, and it is manifested in the major investments that the government is making in the justice system to achieve a better clearance rate regarding all types of crimes.
Eva Lindh expresses herself in very sweeping terms regarding what is being held against the Sverigedemokraterna. I will never defend it, but to easily claim that the Sverigedemokraterna are guilty of crimes – threats are indeed criminal – is to go quite far. To lump a party in Sweden's Riksdag together with influence agents in Russia is also to go very far. If we truly safeguard democracy, which I know we both do, it also places demands on us to express ourselves with precision in these types of issues rather than trying to chase easy political points.
It is clear that all of this is rooted in difficult trade-offs where we believe our freedom of speech is important. It requires that things that are unpleasant, uncomfortable, and inappropriate can and may be said, regardless of what we think about them. But it also naturally requires that when the line is crossed for what we have collectively decided is criminal, it must be prosecuted.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.