Freedom of the press and expression, mass media issues

Susanne Nordström (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating KU's report number 9 on freedom of the press and freedom of expression and mass media issues. I want to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal in the report.

How does the perfect democracy manifest then? Yes, one can truly ask that in these times. I think of that which grates, for example, when one argues and attacks a person and their sometimes invented labels or shortcomings instead of addressing the actual issue. I find that cowardly and indecent.

Another phenomenon that is irritating is disinformation and influence campaigns. It did not take many laps on X, or Twitter, to realize that there are many accounts there whose sole purpose is to create conflict and polarization.

I am also thinking about when one censors oneself because one is worried about reprisals, which in the worst case can lead to losing both friends and livelihood.

In 2013, the political scientist Henrik Ekengren Oscarsson coined the term opinion corridor. He writes on his blog: "But when the opinion corridor becomes so narrow that even many of our more classic social democratic, liberal, conservative positions can also be called socially dangerous or regarded as major lapses in judgment, then we risk completely missing the truly twisted perceptions of reality and the truly society-overturning ideas."

Madam Speaker! I believe that many more than I feel what questions may find themselves in Ekengren's corridor of opinion. The questions naturally vary over time, but this is an interesting phenomenon.

Self-censorship - let us stick with that phenomenon for a moment, because it is somewhat connected to the opinion corridor. I was at an interesting seminar about precisely self-censorship a while ago. There, a survey that had been conducted as part of a SOM survey was presented. There, they showed which questions cause self-censorship and in which contexts.

It emerged that self-censorship in Sweden is high and that it constitutes a weakness in our democracy. It was hardly surprising that the occurrence of self-censorship was greatest on social media. This can be read about in *Talande tystnad? - En ESO-rapport om självcensur i Sverige*.

Madam Speaker! Is it on the internet's social media that free, democratic conversations can and should be conducted? The answer to that question is probably: Yes, but perhaps not only there.

Combating disinformation and hate propaganda is necessary, but it must be done without sacrificing our fundamental right to freedom of speech. Instead of advocating for censorship and rapid reactions to content that may be controversial or offensive, we should focus on strengthening awareness, critical thinking, and media literacy among citizens.

What is expressed on digital platforms knows, as we know, no national borders.

The EU has taken several steps to combat disinformation online. A lot happened before 2018, but I will start with 2018. In April 2018, the Commission presented an EU strategy. They gathered the large digital platform companies as well as the advertising industry, media, and civil society to develop a code of conduct on disinformation.

A little later that same year, in October, the EU established a code of conduct on disinformation, which was signed by a number of online platforms, including Facebook, Google and Twitter, as it was called then. According to this code of conduct, the online platforms are obliged to report annually on their actions in the work to combat disinformation.

In December, this continued with an additional action plan for democracy. And in June 2022, the commission presented an enhanced code of conduct.

We can clearly state that our digital platforms play an increasingly central role in our exchange of information and in our opinion formation. The EU's proposals to combat disinformation and hate speech on the internet are laudable - absolutely. But it must be balanced carefully so as not to jeopardize free opinion formation and freedom of speech, which are fundamental in our society.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to raise another issue.

In today's digitized world, our personal data is an increasingly valuable asset, and demands for the protection of personal privacy are growing. It is not reasonable that our principle of public access is used for criminal purposes. Criminals take advantage of this openness and accessibility. The openness and accessibility that traditionally are intended to curb corruption now give criminals carte blanche to browse any website on the internet to calmly plan their next strike. The principle of public access should be used for the public good and not for criminals.

These questions are engaging. It is noticeable, not least in the motions that have been written. There, I can agree with the sponsors.

The Government decided to task a special investigator with reviewing the constitutional protection for search services that publish personal data, law violations, addresses, marital status, and other information concerning individuals' personal circumstances. This is welcomed. This assignment shall be reported in November this year.

If we strengthen and protect personal privacy, we will also make it more difficult for criminals to exploit our openness.

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

Peter Hedberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would start where Susanne Nordström finished. I could discern a small glimmer of hope when she said: There I can agree with the proposers. But unfortunately, no motion was submitted regarding our reservation, so I must myself move for the approval of reservation number 4.

Just as Susanne Nordström said, the government appointed an inquiry in October 2023 to review the constitutional protection for network databases and search services that provide and publish sensitive personal data. It is indeed set to report on its assignment in November this year. In our reservation, we emphasize the importance of the government returning to the Riksdag with proposals in this area, as we can clearly see that there are very many problems with the current arrangement.

It is unreasonable - it has become completely unreasonable - that it is so simple for ordinary citizens and criminals to map out individual persons' living conditions in detail. The principle of public access is important to enable a transparent society and so that power can be scrutinized. But the technical development has brought about unwanted effects. It is not reasonable that criminal elements can plan and carry out heinous acts against individuals based on, for example, information about vehicle ownership. But it is also not the case that the principle of public access should serve as an instrument for private individuals to systematically and in detail map out the lives of other private individuals.

The European Commission has, as is well known, for a long time had views regarding our current order. Therefore, we truly look forward to the government coming back with proposals in this area. We were in agreement previously, but unfortunately, our government's proposal was voted down. We hope that we can be given the opportunity to be constructive in the upcoming process.

Madam Speaker! I would also like to say something general about freedom of the press and freedom of expression in the context of the events of the past year. We have had Quran burnings and various other expressions of opinion that have been perceived as controversial, offensive, and complicating for Swedish security. They have caused a great stir both domestically and abroad. And I know that there are very many members in this Riksdag who have received countless emails and calls, not to mention all these personal interactions and meetings where these expressions of opinion have been raised.

Many have expressed concern about the image of Sweden, our Natoprocess and the impact on cohesion in the country. But the conversations have also contained concern regarding precisely freedom of speech and potential limitations of it.

It is perhaps natural that the most intense and engaged discussions regarding freedom of speech occur when something provocative happens. It is then that the boundaries for both what is legal and what is socially acceptable are tested.

I have, both as a high school teacher and as a politician, found myself in situations where freedom of speech has been discussed, often precisely in relation to current and controversial situations. I have sometimes been surprised by what young people, and for that matter adults, believe is illegal today, but also what they think should be illegal.

If one delves deeper into these conversations, one often finds interesting arguments about respect, feelings, and understanding. I am convinced that we as politicians and elected representatives have a special responsibility to discuss issues concerning precisely freedom of speech and its limits, even when it concerns difficult subjects.

The conversation and discussion about freedom of speech may not always lead to agreement. But that is not necessary either. Sometimes, the democratic conversation itself is actually the most important thing, especially in a time of polarization and simple solutions.

(Applause)

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! I found to my surprise that I stood as number three on the speaking list. It has never happened before for me. After some discreet investigations, I understand that it is because for once I agree with the committee and move for approval of the committee's proposal. Someone is first for everything.

Miljöpartiet therefore has no own reservations or specific statements in this report. But nevertheless, there are naturally gray areas here and there, where there are good reasons to continue the discussions.

Miljöpartiet wants, among other things, to place greater demands on the internet platforms, or the tech giants if you will, and thereby intensify the work of combating hate crimes online. The large platform companies have developed into dominant forums for both monologues as well as dialogues and discussions on all kinds of issues. Not infrequently, a good deal occurs anonymously, which has also resulted in it being possible to pour out all kinds of offensive words or carry out other verbal attacks without risk of sanctions.

Miljöpartiet wants, like all other parties, I hope, generally to counteract discrimination, threats, and hate against elected officials. It is simply important to remove problems related to discrimination and threats because, in addition to everything else in the form of discomfort, fear, and thus poorer quality of life, it also affects people's opportunities for political engagement.

In politics, women's opportunities to participate on equal terms are particularly hindered by the risk of being subjected to offensive treatment, hate, and threats. According to the Gender Equality Authority, all politicians high up in the hierarchy risk being subjected to violence, but women in high positions are more vulnerable than men. Young women and women who drive issues regarding gender equality and men's violence against women are particularly vulnerable to power techniques, degrading treatment, and harassment. Society must join forces to counter this expression of violence against women, and to tie that bag together, I want to say that the large platform companies are, of course, central actors in this work.

Madam Speaker! Let me also say something about databases with sensitive personal data. It has been debated for several years, and an investigation is underway on the subject which will submit proposals in November this year, which previous speakers have also raised.

The databases in question are, therefore, easily accessible online with extensive and sensitive personal data. It can be information about presence in criminal records or about involuntary psychiatric care. But it can also be more everyday things such as addresses, telephone numbers, car ownership, and other information that many can perceive as an intrusion into personal privacy.

The investigation that I just mentioned shall, therefore, review whether there are grounds to restrict the constitutional protection for publishing such privacy-sensitive information on the internet.

The previous government acted to limit the possibilities for the most privacy-sensitive search services. But initiatives and proposals were stopped in the Riksdag, partly following statements from the Committee on the Constitution. The unity among the parties in the Riksdag was simply not large enough.

When media companies' websites respond to an inquiry from me or someone else, for example, if the name Riise appears on the site, the answers I receive are retrieved from a database. And well, in fact, no one really questions whether it is wise or necessary. If I or some football player with the same surname has appeared in the newspaper, it is of course a good service that I can read it.

But when other organizations, with so-called publishing licenses for their sites, in principle only provide information that is in itself public but which is perceived as very personal, it becomes a privacy violation that is both unnecessary and perhaps also offensive. These sites thus constitute serious encroachments on individuals' personal privacy. The content is therefore protected by the constitution, most often by these sites having a so-called publishing license for the activity.

It is, of course, quite concerning, not to say bizarre or reckless, that it should be possible to easily and cheaply search for someone's potential law violations or judgments, or even worse, for a crime victim to know that the information about the abuse they may have suffered is easy to obtain online for anyone.

Sweden has received criticism from the EU Commission because of these websites, and it concerns a constitutional exception for GDPR.

It is my hope that the ongoing investigation will come forward with proposals for relevant and adequate restrictions regarding the provision of sensitive information online and that there are enough of us who can agree on them.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

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

Victoria Tiblom (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on the Constitution's report KU9 Freedom of the press and freedom of expression, mass media issues, and I move for approval of reservation 5.

Children and young people often have more difficulty than adults in filtering and being critical of the messages they encounter and can therefore be considered extra susceptible to advertising. According to the Radio and Television Act, advertising in television broadcasts, searchable teletext, and pay-TV may not aim to capture the attention of children under twelve years of age. Product placements may also not appear in television broadcasts or in pay-TV programs that are primarily aimed at children under twelve years of age. Through legislative changes that entered into force on 1 December 2020, a provider of a video-sharing platform shall also follow these rules. This applies, however, only to television broadcasts from Sweden.

The largest part of the advertising and advertising messages are delivered via all the digital channels and platforms that children handle. Many TV channels, however, use platforms that exist abroad where more generous laws apply. In the current situation, there is also a lack of prohibition against targeted children's advertising on the internet and in digital apps. This makes it possible for the advertising to still reach children in Sweden. To rectify this situation and ensure that all children's programs can be watched without risk of advertising, we should tighten the existing legislation.

In Sweden, private individuals, companies, and other organizations can report advertising to RO, the Advertising Ombudsman. But one can ask whether RO has kept up with the developments that have occurred over the last few years. Today, most children have access to mobile phones and tablets and are thus exposed to advertising in a completely different way than before.

Even though there is a self-regulation of advertising in 27 countries in Europe and an organization that they cooperate through, EASA, it is not enough to ensure that advertising does not reach children. Sweden should in the EU work for Swedish legislation on advertising aimed at children in TV broadcasts to constitute a minimum level in all of Europe.

Madam Speaker! In recent years, we have been able to see an increase in so-called news avoiders, that is to say, people who feel a diminished trust in traditional media.

The digital platforms have grown so large that they now constitute the most important arena for democratic dialogue and opinion formation.

Despite this, the protection for freedom of expression, opinion, and information is very weak. Above all, the transparency is poor, and the individual is in practice without legal recourse because they can be shut down or blocked without warning or the possibility of appeal. It is worrying that private companies can, on vague grounds, remove opinion makers' opportunities to reach out with their message.

The largest media platforms today are comprised of tech giants primarily from China and the USA. These actors have been given extensive opportunities to influence the dissemination of information in Sweden. Several influential debaters and politicians, but also ordinary citizens, have been silenced on these social media platforms by having their accounts suspended, most often on arbitrary grounds.

Madam Speaker! The sponsors of the motions Freedom of Expression on the Internet and Media Issues call for an announcement that it should be prohibited to contract away a certain orientation of opinion formation on social media platforms. The sponsors further request an announcement that algorithms should not be allowed to favor or disadvantage certain directions of opinion or parties. No content on these platforms should be allowed to be deleted, moderated, or misrepresented based on political or philosophical views. It is important that media reporting is multifaceted, nuanced, and objective.

The online platforms need to be subject to the principle of the duty to contract, which legally means a prohibition against refusing a contract or performing a service without a valid reason. The starting point should be that only content that is illegal according to Swedish law shall be censored and that arbitrary suspension or limitation of user accounts should be prohibited. A Swedish court should, to an extent that ensures the platforms uphold the law, be able to review cases where the account holder has had their account suspended or had the account's content moderated. In cases where a media platform has taken measures that a court later deems illegal, there should be the possibility for sanctions and damages.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! In recent years, our freedom of speech has been debated extensively. Where should the line actually be drawn? The following is often attributed to Voltaire's thoughts on freedom of speech: I dislike what you say, but I am prepared to die for your right to say it. Do we still stand behind that? For many Swedes, the answer throughout the ages has been a resounding yes. When the threat level was raised in the ripples of the LVU campaign and the Quran burnings, the answer was not as self-evident as before, even though we have over time seen that the demands to restrict freedom of speech decreased as the situation was not perceived as being as acute.

This is one of the reasons why it is important that limitations on freedom of expression are considered very carefully and that broad majorities are required when we make changes. Restrictions on freedom of expression should not be made lightly or in acute situations.

Another issue that challenges freedom of speech is the increasing amount of disinformation we see in society. Disinformation is nothing new. What is new is the amount of disinformation, that it can reach you through your mobile phone around the clock, and that algorithms control which feeds you receive.

Disinformation that spreads quickly can have a very large impact. The President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, visited Sweden the other day and, among other things, pointed out that Russian influence attempts are already being seen ahead of the parliamentary elections in the spring. Disinformation caused the British royal family to come out the other day and deny that the British king is dead. There are also examples of disinformation having caused the stock market to hiccup and had economic impact.

Work is now being done at the EU level to curb disinformation and increase transparency, not least on our platforms. This is important, because these issues need to be solved collectively with the strength that the union possesses. This is not an issue that a single country can solve.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I would like to specifically highlight the part of the committee's position regarding the voluntary constitutional protection for databases.

Already when this was introduced, the Committee on the Constitution warned that conflicts would arise with the protection of personal integrity and that the constitutional protection, in the worst case, could encompass databases that are pure personal registers. The Committee emphasized that search services that provide personal data regarding law violations and more constitute a serious infringement on individuals' personal integrity and that it is important that the scope of the constitution's application is clearly delimited.

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, the development has gone in the direction that the committee anticipated. The digital development has resulted in that which one previously needed to contact an authority to obtain is now just a few button presses away via a simple search on the internet. Furthermore, one often receives more information in the search result than one has requested. Data from these databases have also gained entirely new areas of application, which has major consequences for people's privacy. Not least, we see this in the increasing amount of elderly fraud.

Here we have a great responsibility to find a better balance between, on the one hand, the principle of public access and freedom of expression and, on the other hand, the right to privacy and personal integrity. I have high expectations for the investigation that the government has now commissioned, which is very welcome.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! Freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom and right and constitutes one of the cornerstones of democracy. The right for each individual to express their opinion applies in relation to the public - to the state. We as legislators can limit this freedom only under certain conditions and for a purpose that is acceptable in a democratic society.

Free speech and a free press are prerequisites for a vital democracy. In a historical perspective, we have seen that a society where a free press has flourished has led to increased influence for all citizens. A free press is also a prerequisite for those in power to be held accountable for their decisions and actions. To safeguard free speech, everyone's freedom of expression, and free media is therefore completely central to guarding our democracy.

With that said, we must not be naive, nor must we step out of line when we talk about freedom of speech and what this freedom consists of - especially not in today's media landscape, where the younger generation hardly has the morning newspaper and the evening news broadcast on TV as primary sources of information. Instead, it is the social media platforms, such as Instagram, Youtube and Tiktok, that dominate greatly when it comes to the younger ones' media habits. These are platforms and information channels that lie completely outside the control system for media that we here in Sweden have historically leaned on to ensure that media reporting is factual and objective and that a responsible publisher can be held accountable for any transgressions.

Madam Speaker! Yesterday I listened to Magnus Hjort, Director General of the Swedish Defence Research Agency. This is an agency that will obviously have busier days during the spring as the day for the election to the European Parliament, on June 9, approaches. As election day creeps closer, the attempts to influence the election's outcome will increase. This does not only concern attempts at influence from those of us sitting here in the chamber and from our party colleagues during campaigns both on streets and squares as well as in social media, but just as other EU citizens will be exposed to a completely different kind of influence in this EU election, namely influence operations from foreign powers - preferably with Russian senders.

Russia is working extremely actively to spread disinformation and influence the outcome of the upcoming EU election. Russia will, primarily through various platforms and social media, fuel polarization and increase the level of conflict in various issues that are relevant in the EU election. Russia will, through these channels, spread false information and narratives, including about Ukraine and Zelenskyy, in order to reduce our commitment to the war that is ongoing very close to us and weaken the EU's will to continue supporting Ukraine.

Madam Speaker! As I have already touched upon, we have today a completely different media arena than just twenty years ago. The digital development that has occurred since then has fundamentally changed the media landscape, and it has brought with it the good that we have been given new opportunities to make our voices heard and to take part in others' opinions.

But this development has also entailed other opportunities for malicious actors to reach each of us when we scroll on our mobile phones on the bus ride home or surf on the computer at home at the kitchen table. In the feeds we participate in, some form of fake news, disinformation, yes, even pure propaganda will guaranteed appear. Such things are pumped into the system, not infrequently nicely packaged, from both authoritarian states and terrorist organizations. This disinformation and propaganda is anything but easy to see through. As Director General Magnus Hjort pointed out yesterday in his lecture, we need educational initiatives in this area to increase everyone's awareness before the EU election regarding the risk of participating in and spreading incorrect information and pure disinformation.

Mr. Speaker! The freedom of expression that we must guard and that is protected in our constitutions concerns the relationship between the individual and the state. But the large social media platforms are private actors, and my right to express an opinion does not automatically mean that these platforms are obliged to spread just my opinion. For the democratic conversation, it is extremely important that the global platform companies take responsibility for what is posted on their platforms in order to avoid that hate, threats, and pure disinformation are spread and allowed to flourish there.

Freedom of the press and freedom of expression, mass media issues

The Center Party welcomes the measures that have been taken within the framework of EU cooperation in this area, including codes of conduct for online platforms to counter disinformation, which Member Susanne Nordström previously detailed. But the Center Party wants to do more. We want an investigation to be appointed to examine how the global platform companies affect our democracy and, above all, how the protection of our democracy can be strengthened in a changed media landscape where a few platform companies have a major influence on our opinion formation. The Center Party considers it urgent to review how the protection can be strengthened to meet the increasing problems that exist with disinformation, propaganda, and influence operations.

I move for approval of reservation 2.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 18.)

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