Response to interpellation 2024/25:130 on threats and harassment against journalists and researchers
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned threats and harassment against journalists and researchers. M considers these to be unacceptable and a challenge to democracy 1. M argues that the government has strengthened criminal protection, tasked the Media Authority with monitoring journalists' safety, and that the party has distanced itself from SD's troll accounts 1 2 3. M wants to increase the public's media and information literacy 3. MP considers that the government's measures are insufficient and wants a comprehensive strategy with requirements for global platform companies 4. MP wants to ban political parties from using anonymous communication. MP argues that it creates double messages if heavy trust assignments are given to those who threaten democracy 5. M argues that the government's measures will strengthen the protection for journalists, researchers, and emergency services personnel 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! I have asked the Minister for Justice how he intends to act to increase protection against hate and threats for vulnerable professional groups and what measures the government wants to see to strengthen freedom of speech and democracy. The interpellation has been handed over to me.
As a minister responsible for both media and democracy issues, I consider the extent to which journalists, publishers, and researchers are exposed to hate, threats, and harassment to be completely unacceptable. Just as Annika Hirvonen notes, it constitutes a societal problem of such proportions that it can be described not only as an attack against the individual person but also as a challenge for democratic discourse and free research as a whole.
The government is working purposefully to strengthen the protection for, among other things, Sweden's journalists. On August 1 of last year, for example, the criminal protection for journalists and for practitioners of certain socially useful functions such as healthcare personnel, social services personnel, emergency services personnel, and educational personnel within the school system and higher education was strengthened. We have also decided on a new national strategy against terrorism and violent extremism which particularly highlights crimes that threaten democracy, of which crimes against journalists are included.
To further strengthen the protection of journalistic activities in Sweden, the government has allocated funds to Brottsofferjouren to establish a national contact point for journalists who need support or protection as a result of their work. In addition, the Media Authority has been tasked with monitoring the work being carried out regarding journalists' safety and gathering relevant actors for dialogue.
Support for vulnerable journalists, as well as increasing safety and reducing the risk that vulnerability leads to self-censorship, will continue to be a priority issue for the government to follow.
Free expression of opinion and the free dissemination of knowledge belong to the cornerstones of democracy, and there, journalism and research play a central role. Freedom of the press and freedom of expression, which have a long tradition and a strong position in Sweden, are enshrined in our fundamental laws. The freedom of research is also protected in the fundamental laws, and academic freedom is regulated in the Higher Education Act.
Continuing to safeguard the democratic dialogue is a fundamental task for the government. As Minister for Culture, I will specifically prioritize the work for journalists' safety. Hate, threats, and harassment must not gain ground in our society, and in that, we all, not least public representatives, have a shared responsibility.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Madam Speaker! In an appeal published in Dagens Nyheter on September 22, 74 journalists and researchers testified about how they are subjected to threats and harassment in their professional roles. Unfortunately, this is not a new phenomenon, but rather a growing trend.
FOI has, in a study of hate and threats against public figures in digital environments, found that 55 percent of women are subjected to hate and 41 percent of men. Most exposed are female journalists, where as many as two out of three female journalists have had hate-filled comments published against them. Another report on researchers' exposure to hate and harassment, from the University of Gothenburg, also shows a similar pattern. 39 percent state that they have at some point been subjected to some form of threat or harassment. Even there, women are exposed to a higher degree than men.
Threats, hate, and harassment naturally entail great personal suffering for the people who are subjected to them, but in the long run, it is also a threat to our democracy. The fear is already leading to self-censorship, and in the worst case, it can also deter people from choosing a career in, for example, these areas at all.
The Journalists' Association conducted a survey showing that a full 39 percent engage in self-censorship to avoid hate and threats. 48 percent, almost half, state that they have adapted their reporting for the same reasons. Researchers also testify that they have refrained from researching areas that have become politically charged.
This is truly a serious societal problem, and we politicians have a dual responsibility. It is about, among other things, the tone that politicians themselves have. I cannot help but mention that we have now seen that a person has been elected president in the USA who has spoken about not caring if people should "shoot through" journalists.
We also see this in Sweden. In the previous debate, for example, the Sweden Democrats' troll accounts were highlighted. With the taxpayers' funds, which are intended for democratic work, employees who engage in anonymously spreading hate and harassment on social media are being funded.
As legislators, we must also increase the protection for the professional bodies, and I am pleased that the government has taken a number of measures. But I am convinced that they are not sufficient. We need a strategic effort that combines a strong justice system and support for civil society but also investments in media and information literacy against disinformation. It is also a matter of setting requirements for the global platform companies, where the haters often operate.
Is the government prepared to draft such a comprehensive strategy?
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! I completely agree with Annika Hirvonen that we as politicians have a great responsibility, and we absolutely need to reflect on how we express ourselves so as not to fuel hatred, threats, or mistrust towards certain professional groups and towards each other, or damage the trust for our institutions – which I am convinced that we collectively safeguard.
One of the things that I have highlighted in several interpellation debates is the importance of the fact that we have a strong democratic foundation in Sweden with a fundamentally strong protection for the individual's rights. We have a high voter turnout and high trust in our public institutions. There is a great political interest among the population, and there are well-functioning and legally secure institutions as well as strong and independent media.
But just as the member says, journalists, researchers and even other professional groups have a special role in a democratic society. Hate, threats and harassment directed at them do not only constitute an attack on the individual, but it actually becomes an attack on our entire democracy. The consequences can be that it leads to self-censorship.
That journalists should be free to both report on and scrutinize power, and that research should be free from pressure, threats, and harassment is a prerequisite for a functioning democracy. This is partly so that we citizens can gain knowledge, and partly so that we can hold people accountable and base our decisions on facts and a scientific foundation. In that regard, it is extremely central that there is ongoing work based on how things actually look. Therefore, the work to counter hate and threats against journalists is extremely important.
An action plan was presented in 2017: For the defense of free speech. It was good, and it has laid the foundation for the work that the government is now doing in these issues. Today, we have increased the criminal protection, contributed via knowledge bases regarding the vulnerability of the different professional groups, and established a support function for those who are targeted. These are some steps on the way. But the work is far from finished, and there will always be more to do in the matter.
As I mentioned in my introduction, I presented, together with the Minister for Justice before the summer, partly new measures to strengthen the protection for journalists, partly the assignment that the Media Authority has received to follow the issue of journalists' safety, and partly funds for the Crime Victim Support to build up a national contact point. We have also jointly held round-table discussions with parts of the industry to understand what the problems and issues look like and what more needs to be done.
This is a task that, unfortunately, we will not be able to say ends at a certain point, but this is a task that is a result of a social climate. Therefore, it is important to constantly follow the development and maintain a dialogue with the industry and the professional bodies in order to be correct in the measures and the efforts that are needed from politics to continue to strengthen democracy and the opportunity for these professional bodies to do their immensely important work.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for the answer and the commitment to the questions. It is very important that the government takes action. At the same time, I miss several things.
Strengthening the criminal protection, that is, increasing the penalties for those caught for harassing journalists, is good. But it will only have an effect if people are caught in the first place. I note that in the regulatory letter to the Swedish Police Authority, for example, hate crimes are not mentioned as an area at all. Previously, the police have had several assignments in these issues, and it has been a prioritized area. Will the government take any further measures so that more people will also be deterred, so that there are actually consequences for hating?
Then we have the question of the platforms – the platforms for social media and others – which have a great responsibility and need to step up so as not to become tools in the hands of those who want to harm democracy.
One must be well aware that the hatred and harassment are not just about a few grumpy citizens complaining. The fact is that there can also be serious links to actors who want to harm Sweden and undermine trust in democracy in our country and society in order to make us weaker. This needs to be taken very seriously.
The Minister also points out that it is a result of a societal climate. I would still like to ask in what way the government intends to act when one is now sitting and cooperating with individuals and a party that have actively contributed to the harsher societal climate with the troll accounts that have been revealed.
I and my colleagues in Miljöpartiet have submitted a proposal to the Committee on the Constitution to begin work to see if one could at least ban political parties from engaging in the type of anonymous communication that SD has done regarding its troll accounts. So far, the government parties' representatives have tabled it month after month, and we are not moving forward.
Even when it comes to politicians who do this, it needs to have consequences. Words and condemnations will not change people's behaviors. Here I see that the Moderaterna and the government have a special responsibility. It is still the government parties that have given the Sverigedemokraterna an incredibly heavy position of power and a platform from which to exert influence.
My experience is, and it is something one notices when looking out over the world, that when political representatives engage in spreading, for example, satire with hate, or where one casts suspicion on certain ethnic groups or speaks ill of ethnic groups, it also has an effect.
It sets a norm. It is a bit like adults doing something and children following suit. That is also how it works in society.
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! I shall begin at the last end. It is extremely important that we all need to examine ourselves and our own parties. We need to take responsibility for our own communication.
My party has in any case been very clear on this issue, including myself. Regarding the Sweden Democrats and troll accounts, we have distanced ourselves from this. We do not think it is right to act in that way.
I believe in transparency. It is good that we can have an open and free debate, and it should be based on a factual foundation. But unlike what the member said, I believe that words and condemnations actually matter.
It is important that we also signal with words what we think is okay and not okay. I believe that, in the end, this can contribute to a shift in what we consider to be norms, and they can, of course, go in different directions.
One of the government's core tasks is, of course, to defend what constitutes Swedish democracy. It is a matter of ensuring that our society also continues to be characterized by openness and respect for human civil and political rights. We all have a great responsibility in that work.
We see a significantly increased spread of disinformation and lies, not least on social media, which the member has also mentioned in his speech. We also see an increased threat to freedom online, not least through authoritarian states that use the digital infrastructure to censor and silence oppositionists.
Within the EU, several initiatives have been taken in this area. For several years now, there has been a code of conduct on disinformation that many platform services have joined. We also have ongoing work with implementing the new regulation on digital services on the internal market, DSA. There, requirements are also now being introduced for the largest platform services to risk assess and risk manage regarding disinformation.
Then, of course, we also need to build up resilience in our own population. We need to ensure that disinformation and influence campaigns are something we work against. In that regard, media and information literacy is a basic and key knowledge for ensuring that we build up that resilience. There, we need to increase the knowledge of the individual and also the public's ability to be able to identify and evaluate different types of messages and senders, and also to understand how information flows work and how they can be used.
That is why the government has tasked the Media Authority to, among other things, carry out a both broad and long-term initiative in Sweden to strengthen the public's media and information literacy. The intention is, of course, that we shall be able to increase society's resilience against disinformation in the long term.
I truly share the member's perspective that this is an issue that we continue to need to monitor and work on. It is nothing that will end or that we can come up with a plan against and then believe that we can be satisfied with that.
It requires a constant and ongoing effort to ensure that democracy is strengthened, to build resilience against disinformation, and at the same time to ensure that the professional groups that work extra hard to maintain our democratic structure, including journalists, also have good opportunities to do their work.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Mr. Speaker! On several points, I perceive that Parisa Liljestrand has a genuine commitment to these issues. I also believe that it is important to speak out.
If on one hand you speak out and on the other hand continue to give very heavy mandates of trust and continue to maintain a power platform for those who actually engage in this activity, which we agree threatens democracy, it becomes double messages. It becomes words on one hand and an action that nevertheless accepts and where the status quo is allowed to continue on the other.
Mr. Speaker! I want to use the last minute of my speaking time to read out some of the testimonies that have been published in the outcry.
I quote: "I remember how I laughed at the first threat that arrived. It was so banal, such obvious lies. It was five individuals/organizations who, over a period of nine months, wrote up 'articles' with lies, several a day. Each article was followed by threats and harassment from their followers. The phone rang incessantly, emails filled up, all social media accounts were sabotaged. It wasn't really the content that exhausted me, but the amount... After a couple of months, a death threat arrived that was so coldly and unpleasantly formulated that I became truly afraid, and after that, it was difficult to stop being afraid. As if something had shifted inside."
Another quote: "The hate that pours in makes me feel constantly persecuted by evil. Becoming quieter and quieter. Hesitating for every text or appearance. It is like a mountain to climb over. Do I really have the strength for all this shit again?"
Kulturministern Parisa Liljestrand (M)
Mr. Speaker! I can state that the stories that the member shares here from the rostrum are stories that I, too, unfortunately have heard when I have been out traveling around the country and met journalists and representatives for organizations that work in different ways with freedom of speech.
It is naturally a dark picture. But I choose to be hopeful. By us highlighting the issue, which the member does by now having this interpellation debate, and through the measures that the government has taken and continues to take, I am convinced that we will gradually be able to reach a point where we can together stand up to defend freedom of speech and ensure that the professional groups that are so important for democracy can carry out their work in a professional manner without having to worry about threats, hate, or self-censorship.
These are issues that the government takes very seriously. Measures have been taken, measures will continue to be taken, and work is ongoing within the framework of more policy areas than just those that I am responsible for. We do this to counter hate, threats, and harassment against journalists, researchers, and emergency services personnel, but also other actors, and to strengthen the protection for these professional groups.
We are in complete agreement that we need to do things together. It matters how we treat each other, and it also matters what plan we have for the future. We need to have a plan, but we also need to show action - and we need to do that in the long term.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.