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

Susanne Nordström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a motion report on freedom of the press and freedom of expression. I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

There are many important and thought-provoking motions taken up in the report, and there is a lot going on in these issues. The EU Media Freedom Act, which was adopted in April 2024, contains rules for a well-functioning internal market for media services but also for the protection of media independence and diversity, that is to say, ensuring that newsrooms and media companies can freely choose which topics they report on, how they report, and which perspectives they highlight without undue influence from the state, political actors, or commercial interests. It is simply about letting journalists and editors work freely without fear of reprisals or demands for adaptation to the will of those in power.

Furthermore, those who reveal irregularities or contribute important information to journalists should be able to do so anonymously without risk of being exposed. Stable and long-term structures are needed that prevent state or political forces from being able to control the content or direction of the public service companies' reporting. The new rules will apply fully from August 2025.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to our freedom of expression, which must be protected, there are unfortunately aberrations. Aberrations regarding freedom of expression can arise when the principle of free opinion formation is abused or interpreted in a way that undermines democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, for example, when freedom of expression is used to spread hate against minorities through racist, homophobic, or antisemitic statements, or for disinformation and the spread of conspiracy theories.

Deliberately spreading false information, especially regarding elections, war, or for that matter pandemics, will in the long or short run undermine democracy and trust in our open society. Freedom of speech is sometimes used to incite violence or terrorism, which can create serious security threats.

To manage the deviations that I gave examples of without restricting freedom of speech itself, there are several strategies available. It can be political, legal, or at the societal level. The important thing is that we find a balance where we protect free debate but at the same time prevent freedom of speech from being exploited to harm others or undermine democracy. The state, or the EU in this case, should not govern what is true or false, but rules can be created that prevent lies and hate from being used to undermine society.

The EU has been working to combat disinformation online since 2018. A code of conduct was developed in cooperation with digital platforms such as Facebook, Google, and X. The platforms report annually on their measures to reduce the spread of false information. To strengthen the work, the EU has established an action plan and a warning system for rapid information sharing between member states. During the pandemic, efforts against covid-related disinformation were increased.

In 2022, an updated code of conduct with stricter requirements was presented. It aims to stop advertising revenue for disinformation, counter fake accounts and manipulation campaigns, improve fact-checking and research access, and provide users with better tools to flag false information.

A society with informed citizens is more resilient against disinformation and conspiracy theories. It is about strengthening school education and continuing education – perhaps not so much continuing education for young people but rather adults – in having an ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, and communicate with texts and images. It is absolutely crucial.

Then we have this matter regarding political advertising. Of course, in a democratic society, there must be transparency regarding political advertising. The regulation on political advertising, which aims to create clearer rules for how political advertising may be disseminated, particularly in digital campaigns, means that the use of personal data in targeted political advertising is restricted and that citizens should more easily be able to see who is financing an advertisement and why they specifically are seeing it.

In Sweden, it is now proposed that the Medical Products Agency and the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection be given responsibility for monitoring that the rules are followed. These agencies shall ensure that political advertisements are clearly labeled and that election influence occurs in a transparent manner.

Both the Media Freedom Ordinance and the Ordinance against Political Advertising are currently being prepared in the Government Offices. The Government plans to submit propositions to the Riksdag in September this year, which means that concrete proposals on how the EU rules should be implemented nationally may be forthcoming shortly.

Mr. Speaker! A beautified image of crime is also disinformation, thus a variant. Digital platforms have become an arena for criminal networks that recruit young people and spread a falsified image and beautify crime.

To better understand and counter this, the government has tasked the Crime Prevention Council and the Swedish Defence Research Agency with investigating how this recruitment takes place. The Crime Prevention Council analyzes court cases and the role of digital platforms in the recruitment, while the Swedish Defence Research Agency examines how a criminal lifestyle is marketed online and influences the attitudes of young people.

The assignment shall lead to proposals for preventive measures. The results shall be reported by October 2026 at the latest.

Through these initiatives, the EU and the Swedish government show that they take the threats to democracy, freedom of speech, and security seriously. It now remains to be seen how the new rules are implemented and what effects they have in practice.

There is an important balance between EU rules and Sweden's constitutionally protected freedom of the press and freedom of expression. In Sweden, these freedoms are strongly protected through the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression.

These constitutional laws limit the state's possibilities to regulate media and expressions, which means that all new laws, including EU regulations, must be handled with great caution so as not to infringe upon these rights in a way that contravenes the constitution.

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

Peter Hedberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to move for approval of reservation 5. After that, I intended, in the true spirit of KU, to stick to the broad lines.

In Sweden, we are happy to highlight our proud history in the area of freedom of the press and freedom of expression. It is particularly often emphasized that Sweden in 1766 received the world's first statutory freedom of the press. It was indeed a milestone during the Enlightenment and has rightly been noted in recent times, not least at the 250th anniversary in 2016.

But it is not the case that the period from 1766 to our days was a constantly flourishing period of free opinion formation and healthy interaction between journalism and the state. If I mention Gustav III and the coup d'état of 1772, many in the chamber will probably understand what I mean.

Those who know their history naturally also know something that was commonly occurring during the first half of the 1800s. Then, some poor court official had to translate news articles from Swedish to French in order to inform the then-king Karl XIV Johan about the day's harvest of unpleasant criticism, most often from Lars Johan Hierta with a few others. This was frequently followed by a corrective measure according to the so-called power of withdrawal.

Much has happened since both 1766 and 1814. We can observe that the freedom of the press legislation we are covered by today is significantly better than its predecessors and how they were applied. But, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that even today we must safeguard free opinion formation and especially the media's and journalists' opportunities to freely report, comment on, and analyze what happens in our society and in the rest of the world.

We have for a number of years seen how the conditions for journalists around the world are deteriorating, and we must be vigilant regarding such tendencies even in Sweden. This applies to journalists at national, nationwide newspapers but also to those within local and regional media.

Mr. Speaker! I am actually already incredibly tired of hearing about President Trump's actions after his barely two months back in power, but unfortunately, we must contend with him and the significant power that comes with the American presidency.

President Trump cannot be blamed for having created the negative or hostile attitude that many now hold towards independent and free media, but he has undeniably amplified the phenomenon and gone far beyond the limit of what an elected president in the USA should do. Even in Europe and Sweden, we see how certain political forces choose to cast suspicion on the media and spread conspiracy theories that undermine trust in journalism.

As a politician, one can often feel that not all journalism and reporting is 100 percent fair, but that does not justify a general suspicion which, in the long run, harms a versatile and objective reporting on the state of affairs. As those in power and elected officials, we politicians must stand up for the independent journalism, which is often uncomfortable for us. It is not easy, but it is necessary.

That is why we Social Democrats believe that the government should work out a concrete action plan to handle the issue of security for media and opinion makers. I therefore want to once again move for approval of reservation 5.

Mr. Speaker! I think Susanne Nordström from the Moderaterna gave an excellent speech in many respects, but I would like to supplement a bit regarding the question of search services, which continues to be relevant in relation to aspects of personal privacy.

The question of how this should be regulated has been a long-runner or dragged in the long bank, if you will. I remember that the first bill debate I had in this chamber concerned the pending constitutional proposal with proposals in these areas.

The investigation commissioned by the government in 2023 presented its report in late autumn 2024 with proposals that are now being prepared in the Government Offices. I know that it has sparked many reactions and much debate.

We also know that the EU Commission follows the processes in Sweden, both in the government and in the Riksdag, very closely. In the committee, we have received that it is of utmost importance that the government promptly returns with proposals that can meet the EU's requirements based on GDPR and personal privacy.

I do not believe that anyone in this chamber and in our committee is unaware of the difficult trade-offs that are required when these legislative proposals are to be presented, but I want, just as in previous years when the issue has been debated, to emphasize that it is not reasonable that people's living conditions can be mapped out and exploited for criminal purposes in the name of transparency.

We are, of course, also following the debate that has flared up regarding the possibility of conducting effective background checks. We Social Democrats are open to discussing and contributing to proposals in that area. But as is unfortunately the case when one is in opposition, Mr. Speaker, the initiative lies with the government.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Freedom of the press is, as we have heard, a Swedish constitutionally protected right. It concerns issues regarding freedom of the press, constitutional protection for certain media, and also the principle of public access. It has its origin in the Freedom of the Press Act of 1766, which was the first codified freedom of the press in the world. It creates respect but also a need to cherish both the memory and the active exercise of it.

The principle of public access, which was introduced at that time to enable the scrutiny of power, is now used, among other things, by criminals to map out individuals' finances, housing, and family circumstances in order to target potential crime victims.

The freedom of the press, which guaranteed that, for the most part, everything could be printed – except for attacks on "the pure evangelical doctrine, disparagement of the constitutional laws, defamation and obscenity" – can, via digital publications, including via platforms in third countries, be used for destabilizing purposes but also to seriously influence the self-image and worldview of young people and to recruit for crime or lure into sexual exploitation of young people who have no idea who is hiding behind an alias.

Today, it is easy to map out large parts of a person's identity. One can go to Mrkoll or another search service and see what one's neighbor earns or what the neighbor's home is worth. Date of birth, living situation, property value, income and telephone number – everything is open to the public. These are pieces of information that make it easy for fraudsters, identity thieves and other criminals to map out and strategically select suitable victims.

The publication of personal data by search services is a buffet for criminals who target frauds against the elderly and other vulnerable groups. Information on who is over 70 years old and lives alone is just a click away.

This opportunity for search services to publish personal data must be limited. Everyone should at least have the right both to say no to having their data published and to have it removed. In addition to the search services providing criminals with personal data, personal privacy is violated.

It is voluntary publishing licenses that make the search services' operations legal and protected under the constitution on freedom of expression. Since constitutional laws trump other laws, the search services can publish extensive personal data, despite the provisions in the EU's General Data Protection Regulation. The "right to be forgotten", that is, to have one's personal data deleted in certain cases, is part of the data protection regulation. This does not apply, however, when there is a publishing license. Today, the search services can therefore function as they do because Sweden has a constitution on freedom of expression.

But does the mass publication of extensive personal data really fall within what is, in the sense of the law, freedom of expression and freedom of the press? No, I mean. The purpose, Mr. Speaker, was never to expose individual vulnerable citizens. The purpose of the various laws on public access, freedom of the press, and freedom of expression was to scrutinize power.

The principle of public access, meaning that everyone shall have the right to access public documents that are not subject to secrecy, is a fundamental part of Swedish democracy. But great caution and respect must also surround people's privacy in the handling of personal data. This is in poor harmony with the large amount of personal data that is collected, compiled, and published in databases of search services such as MrKoll and Ratsit.

An investigation, SOU 2024:75, has looked into the issue, and as we have heard from previous speakers, the proposals are being prepared in the Government Offices. I do not want to anticipate the results of that preparation. The referral process concluded as recently as March 10 this year, that is, just over a week ago.

It is important to simultaneously safeguard the possibility of conducting background checks in cases where it is justified, for example, when it concerns employment within operations that target children – or for that matter, the elderly. In many cases, we need to conduct more background checks than today, but it must be done in a legally secure manner.

Some of the motions that today's report handles raise issues that are quite close to what I have stated here. With reference to the ongoing work in the Government Offices, I nevertheless refrain from moving for approval of them and move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Lars Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of reservation 11 in today's report KU24 on freedom of the press and freedom of expression and mass media issues.

Today's debate touches upon several extremely important and current parameters in the rapidly changing world we now live in, which has a news consumption that is very different than just a few years ago. The media has historically played, and still plays, a central role in our democratic society. We have in Sweden a very far-reaching freedom of the press and freedom of expression, which is something we should be proud of and safeguard. This we have also heard previous speakers mention.

The media sector, or the so-called fourth estate, has a very great value for our democracy. Not infrequently, it is our media actors who, at least to some extent, set the agenda for the societal debate. This naturally implies a great influence over what is discussed, and in the long run, it also affects which political decisions are made. It also implies a very great responsibility to provide both breadth and depth to ensure a multifaceted, nuanced, and objective reporting.

Madam Speaker! It has become a rather complex area in many ways with the rapid technological development we have seen in recent years, where less serious actors can sometimes exploit our freedom of speech with narrow truths and a varying degree of the often-mentioned fake news. This is a development we must be observant of so that it does not lead to a distortion in the information that reaches our consumers and, in the long run, can affect our democracy in a very negative way. This is something that affects not only smaller players in the field but also our historically larger media actors and traditional media.

In recent years, we have been able to see a certain decrease in trust for certain traditional media. There are also discussions about an opinion corridor, and it has at times been perceived from its side that there have existed topics that Swedish established media have not highlighted to a sufficient extent. This in itself has opened the door for a number of alternative media, some more serious than others. The emergence of these must nevertheless – at least partially – be attributed to the fact that traditional media have not in a correct way described the reality that at least a part of our citizens have experienced. A little self-reflection might perhaps have been in its place here.

A number of these alternative media have simply lifted up both news and perspectives that groups of consumers have experienced as missing in the traditional media landscape. This has, however, led to increased polarization, and it is very unfortunate when some perhaps completely reject traditional media and only rely on alternative media – or vice versa.

This is naturally concerning for those of us who desire a more nuanced picture of reality. We truly strive to seek information from a wide range of perspectives and from varied sources. Such a breadth gives us better opportunities to arrive at a well-balanced perception of societal development and leads to increased opportunities to understand and interact both with people of other opinions and with those who perform a different analysis of reality than we ourselves. We do not, as said, live in a black-and-white world, but rather in a multitude of different gray zones.

We believe that this breadth leads to a more nuanced climate of debate and that this is also crucial for developing an ability to independently form an understanding of what are credible sources and what are not.

To prevent an overly narrow media reporting, a breadth of actors is therefore needed who both scrutinize and spur each other toward good, objective journalism with a multitude of different perspectives.

Madam Speaker! I shall now say a few words about media support. Free and independent media are cornerstones of a democracy. They have a responsibility to both scrutinize those in power and inform citizens about current events. The media landscape has changed radically in recent years with the growth of social media. This has led to reduced advertising revenues and fewer subscribers for newspapers. The death of newspapers is a frequent topic of conversation, not least within the regional and local press.

The most important measure to tackle this dilemma has been to review our somewhat outdated press and media support. The focus on national press and daily newspapers is outdated as we, as consumers, increasingly keep ourselves updated digitally. It is not primarily our national newspapers that are in crisis, but rather the local press.

We Sweden Democrats view positively that the Riksdag voted through the bill A sustainable media support for the whole country. During the investigation, the importance of local and regional journalism in the whole country has been highlighted. A democratic prerequisite for local authorities to be able to be scrutinized in an effective way is to support this more local orientation for the media support.

The media market is changing at a rapid pace. Therefore, the media support needs to be dynamic even in the future. We believe that the fact that it is now being restructured to focus to a greater extent on local and regional reporting will lead to it becoming more purposeful, with requirements for local newsrooms and a high concentration of self-produced content.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! In the committee report that we are discussing today, many aspects are addressed that are worth noting, not least regarding the tech giants' responsibility for how social media is used. We in the Liberals have taken several initiatives within this very important area, and the purpose has been clear: Parents must be able to regain control from the tech giants so that children's and young people's screen time can be reduced and so that cyberbullying, abuse, and appearance anxiety decrease.

We want to see parental approval for younger children's accounts on social media, and we want the tech giants to receive tangible penalties if they do not manage age verification. We want platforms, games, and streaming services to be shut down for children at night unless the parents have decided otherwise. We want social media for younger children to be classified as a harmful product throughout the EU, in the same way as the EU treats tobacco companies, and we want to see a point tax on the tech giants' advertising revenues.

All of this is important, but in this context, I choose to concentrate on another aspect of great significance within this area. It is about the political parties' responsibility for how we use the new social media.

Madam Speaker! The liberal movement was born out of the struggle for the right to free debate. Brave liberals have from the 1600s onwards fought for the freedom of expression that we see as self-evident in Sweden today. But freedom of expression must be defended at all times, and in many countries, the development is currently going completely in the wrong direction – even here in Europe.

In a free society, you have the right to criticize those in power and express your opinion even if it is not appreciated by others. All too often, there are calls for censorship and bans on that which is controversial. We liberals believe in a different path. Open debate, where opinions can meet one another, is vital.

Liberals often say that the limit of freedom is where one begins to violate someone else's freedom, not where one violates someone's feelings or beliefs. Today's protection against the most egregious hate speech shall remain, but we see no reason to introduce further restrictions.

Madam Speaker! With this said, I want to raise the political responsibility for how we use freedom of speech, not least in the new social media. Last year, it was highlighted that the Sverigedemokraterna operated anonymous accounts on social media. These accounts were managed by the party's communications department, and some of them had acted disrespectfully and expressed themselves in a derogatory manner about opponents in several parties.

The review that was conducted then and the debate that followed shed light on a phenomenon that should not exist in our country. It is clear that parties in Sweden have every right to express their opinions in the way they wish, but a fundamental principle is that one also stands by what one communicates. Before social media began to emerge, it was unusual for the political parties to communicate anonymously, but now it has become more common.

For the Liberals, it is important to curb this development. We believe that an open public debate is based on it not only being clearly evident what is being put forward but also who stands behind a message. Therefore, we see a need for all parliamentary parties to agree on a code of conduct ensuring that this shall be evident in their communication.

We hope that the parties here in the Riksdag choose to join the idea of a code of conduct. But if it is not possible to reach such an agreement – or if such an agreement is not respected – we see a need to regulate this in law, preferably through a ban for parties to spread political messages or advertise anonymously.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I would like to move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of reservation 12. Vänsterpartiet has several reservations in this committee report, and we naturally stand behind all of them. It is, however, reservation 12 that I choose to raise today.

This is a very broad report. Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are the core of our democracy. I still think there is something slightly nice about this debate. I believe we all share a common concern regarding societal development and the polarized conversation. It is something we often talk about in the committee. We also have a somewhat different culture in our committee: In other committees, people are more opposed to one another and seek conflict, but in the Committee on the Constitution, we instead try to listen to each other's thoughts and find broad agreements.

The consideration also deals with mass media issues, so as has been said, it is many issues that are taken up.

Madam Speaker! Not so very long ago – it is about a year ago – we debated in the committee the government's proposal for a new media subsidy. Several of us in the opposition warned then that the new media subsidy risked leading to media death, primarily for the newspapers that provide perspective and contribute to increased diversity, but also for media within the field that the government has said it intends to protect, namely local and regional news journalism.

The proposal was put forward under very great time pressure because the system for press support that we had and which was approved by the EU Commission would cease a month after we had the debate here in the chamber. The future was unclear, and there was great uncertainty and criticism among the media because the bill we were debating was at an overall level and many details for the press support would instead come in later regulations and ordinances.

Madam Speaker! Now we stand here with the answer: Several of the media outlets that contribute to diversity have been denied support.

I still want to believe that the government was serious about its intention and that the purpose really was to strengthen democracy by promoting the public's access to independent news reporting throughout the country via a diversity of public news media with high-quality editorial content.

Vänsterpartiet agreed with the government on the need for a new media support system because the old system was complicated, outdated, and difficult to understand. It was also not adapted to today's digitalization, something that several debaters before me have touched upon. In the committee and among the parties, we agreed that the system needed to be changed. Sverigedemokraternas representative in the debate at that time, however, seemed to welcome that Sweden would finally have fewer newspapers in the country.

Now we stand here with the final result, Madam Speaker. "Thanks and goodbye after 42 years!" That is what stands on the front page of the last issue of the newspaper Nu, which arrived last month. In the newspaper, the editor-in-chief writes: It was not supposed to end like this. We were just in the process of renewing ourselves and adapting to new media habits, and we believed in our vision of a new Nu. But without money, one cannot continue, and without media support, it was difficult to find new financing.

I must admit that I have not been a frequent reader, and perhaps I have not belonged to the newspaper's target audience either. But I actually think it is sad that this newspaper is one of those that is going into the grave or risks doing so. It will lead to fewer perspectives, a lack of diversity and, in the long run, a poorer democratic conversation. All previous speakers in this debate have said they safeguard news journalism, diversity, and that we stand up to guarantee each other a free formation of opinion.

Madam Speaker! The Left Party's position is that free, independent, and autonomous media are a prerequisite for a stable democracy and free formation of opinion. We safeguard this long tradition. Since 1766, Sweden – with certain modifications – has had a freedom of the press and freedom of expression where free debate and free exchanges of views have been encouraged. There has been an awareness and a broad consensus that even smaller media outlets, which have added perspectives to the debate, have been important for the free word. The media companies' important role and contribution to reflecting the general debate in society and scrutinizing power have not been underestimated.

We believe that a modern media support system needs to be designed to be able to meet the requirements placed on a democratic society. It needs to safeguard local, regional and national news journalism as well as media diversity. The economic investments in media support in the budget need to be large enough to guarantee that the overall purpose – to strengthen democracy – can truly be fulfilled.

In our view, a larger investment in media support was therefore needed in the budget, particularly to safeguard the diversity of media. An increase in media support could also enable newspapers to invest in a center for investigative journalism. Therefore, we in Vänsterpartiet have in recent years proposed an increase of the appropriation by 500 million compared to the government's proposal.

Vänsterpartiet also considers that the media support needs to be investigated for the future in a parliamentary commission. As we have heard from previous debaters, the media landscape is changing incredibly rapidly right now. The conditions for practicing journalism are changing fast. This is affected by external factors that we ourselves cannot control.

In recent years, this government has given Sweden's educational institutions increasingly tougher economic conditions. A consequence of this is that several student newspapers have been shut down or are threatened with closure. We in Vänsterpartiet believe that it is important that students have access to free and independent media that focus on academic freedom and on the student unions' activities. Therefore, we believe that a targeted support to student unions and independent student media should be investigated.

This is, as has been said, a broad report, Madam Speaker. Threats and hate against journalists, opinion leaders, politicians, and cultural workers is a growing threat to our democracy. In a large survey from 2019, four out of ten journalists stated that they had refrained from reporting on a subject to avoid being subjected to threats and hate. The same tendencies can be seen in the rest of our society. It is a development that, of course, risks affecting the willingness to engage and participate in the public debate. The risk is that people do not dare to exercise the freedom of speech guaranteed to everyone through the constitution. There is also a risk that one does not dare to conduct uncomfortable investigations or scrutinize us, the holders of power. When political forces in Sweden and in our surrounding world fuel this development, through troll factories and propaganda centers, it is a serious threat to the freedom of the press and freedom of speech that we have held high for so long.

Sometimes it is said that Sweden is the 51st state of the USA, because we in Sweden are often influenced by and follow the developments in the USA with great interest. The USA has a great influence in the world, and the development we see with the new-old administration is therefore very worrying. The Vice President chose to travel to Europe and claim that the threat to our democracy is not Russia's war against Ukraine but the threat to our freedom of speech, for example because we have legislation on hate speech against a group. At the same time, they themselves do everything in their power to silence their opponents. They question concepts such as disinformation, launch their own concepts such as alternative facts, and choose to go along with the tech giants' agenda, which the previous speaker also touched upon.

Madam Speaker! This is a dangerous development that must not go unnoticed. I move for the approval of reservation 12. I had intended to speak about search services as well, but I must refer to the joint reservation of the Left Party and the Social Democrats.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to move for the approval of reservation 13.

Freedom of speech is a word with many layers and a word that can obviously be given different meanings depending on who you are talking to or who is expressing themselves. It is a word that in our day is used frequently in the political debate and which can be used as a political whipping boy.

So it happened when the American Vice President JD Vance gave his much-talked-about speech in Munich last month. What he claimed to fear in Europe was not Russia's ongoing abuses against the Ukrainian people or Russia's oppression of its own people. What Vance claimed to fear – yes, it was actually just this word he used – was instead the retreat of freedom of speech in Europe. This is a rhetoric that is, to say the least, deceptive.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the alleged threat to freedom of speech, Vance specifically pointed out Sweden, in addition to Brussels and the United Kingdom, in his speech. He referred to a conviction for hate speech from the Stockholm District Court. There, a person was sentenced last month for having burned the Quran and simultaneously making offensive remarks about Islam and its followers. The judge who presided over the trial in the Stockholm District Court stated the following in a press release after the judgment had been delivered: There is a large scope for being critical of a religion within the bounds of freedom of speech in a factual and responsible debate. That one expresses views on religion does not simultaneously provide a free pass to do or say anything.

JD Vance chose in his speech in Munich not to quote the first sentence of the judge's statement, namely that there is a large scope to be critical of a religion within the framework of freedom of speech. Instead, he pointed out the Swedish judge as cold and reproduced what he said about freedom of speech not giving a free pass to do or say anything. It was thus an explicit criticism of the fact that freedom of speech has limitations, something that is seen as self-evident both here in Sweden and in Europe. We are not free to say whatever we want in the name of freedom of speech. We are not allowed, for example, to deny the Holocaust without being punished for it. This was clarified here in the Riksdag with a legislative change as recently as last spring.

Madam Speaker! The political scientist Gina Gustavsson gave a clear picture in an article in DN this week of the differences between Europe and the USA regarding the view on freedom of speech. On the other side of the Atlantic, the value of being able to express one's "honest opinion" sits deep even when it undermines the truth or humiliates someone who is already vulnerable. We here in Europe, on the other hand, have a long tradition of trying to balance freedom of speech against values such as dignity and reputation and thus set limits on freedom of speech.

We as legislators can limit freedom of speech, but of course only under certain specific conditions. That is naturally very important.

Freedom of speech and a free press are prerequisites for a vital democracy. Safeguarding freedom of speech 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 retrieves their information via social media platforms. These platforms 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! The digital development that has occurred in recent years has fundamentally changed the media landscape. It has given ill-intentioned actors completely different opportunities to reach each of us because we are checking our phones almost incessantly. In the feeds we participate in, some form of fake news, disinformation, or even propaganda is guaranteed to appear. Such content is pumped into the system from both authoritarian states as well as terrorist organizations and criminal actors within organized crime. This disinformation and propaganda is anything but easy to see through, especially when the sender can hide behind anonymity.

I heard the Liberal Mauricio Rojas speak about the use of anonymous accounts in political communication, and I appreciate what Mauricio Rojas said about the Liberals also standing behind a code of conduct for how politicians use social media in their communication. The Committee on the Constitution has another report that will be addressed here concerning constitutional issues, and I look forward to the Center Party's proposal on how this can be regulated and welcome that the Liberals also stand behind this.

Madam Speaker! A strong liberal democracy requires media that scrutinize power, inform citizens, and highlight societal problems, that is to say, good journalism in a broad sense. This must, of course, exist at all levels and throughout the entire country, from the small municipality in the inland of Norrland to our larger cities. Today, several local newspapers in Sweden have limited resources. Investigative and probing journalism requires both time and resources, and it is difficult for many of the smaller newspapers to fully fulfill that mission. For a vibrant democracy, we need journalists at all the country's local newspapers who have the opportunity to conduct in-depth investigations of what is happening at the local level. This is extremely important, not least in times like these when we know that municipalities and regions face increasing threats of being affected by infiltration and corruption, including from organized crime.

In our neighboring countries Norway and Denmark, centers for investigative journalism have been established with the aim of supporting local journalism. The Center Party believes that there is a need for such a center also in Sweden. A center for investigative journalism could provide advice and support to newsrooms at local and regional levels and in this way make it possible for these newsrooms to tackle larger investigative projects. At the national level, the center could provide seminars, courses, and training, and create networks and collaborative projects. To strengthen local journalism, the Center Party wants the government to review how a corresponding center to those in our neighboring countries can be designed and financed in Sweden. I know that this has been done with fairly small financial means in our neighboring countries.

Madam Speaker! The American journalist and editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg recently accidentally participated in a Signal chat where, among others, US Vice President JD Vance discussed defense secrets. In this chat, it appeared that Vance, who in Munich wanted to present himself as a champion of freedom of speech in Europe, does not seem particularly eager to fight for us Europeans. On the contrary, he said in the chat: "I just hate to bail out Europe again." His colleague in the Trump administration, Defense Minister Pete Hegseth, could hardly be perceived as anything other than trying to strike against the free press, the free word, and precisely freedom of speech when, after secret information in the Signal chat had been revealed, he attacked Jeffrey Goldberg and called him treacherous and a dishonest so-called journalist.

In these times with an uncertain, yes, actually dangerous situation in Europe, it is important that we nurture the language and that we politicians choose our words with care regardless of in which room they are uttered, because as Säpo repeatedly emphasizes: Words have an impact.

Words have meaning. We must safeguard our freedom of speech and be careful with all words, even the word freedom of speech.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! Free, independent, credible and scrutinizing media are indispensable components in a democratically ordered world. Without free media, no democracy.

Free media together with freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and other freedoms we often take for granted, but all too many people in the world do not have access to these. It is these freedoms and media that are the basis for the free formation of opinion that we find in the introduction to the Instrument of Government, namely the Instrument of Government Chapter 1, Section 1: ”The Swedish system of government is based on free formation of opinion and on universal and equal suffrage.” Certainly no one here in this house has any objections to this sentence. Of course, there may be different thoughts on how this is to be realized. I interpret it as that there should be support for a structure that enables this free formation of opinion, in the same way as we have an order for elections at regular intervals.

Unfortunately, the new media support has resulted in a reduced diversity. My local newspaper, Norra Halland, faces a slow death with the design the support received. To ensure the desired diversity, we must ensure that the support is evaluated and updated with greater resources.

Madam Speaker! When I mention the city of Alingsås, perhaps not everyone spontaneously thinks of the exciting light installations every November or the cozy cafes. Perhaps thoughts turn instead to the revelation about the two leading politicians who had some kind of internal club for gossip and all sorts of disparaging judgments about others. It was the newspaper Göteborgs-Posten that revealed it all. In the same way, newspapers and other media have over the years shone the spotlight on a long series of, at times quite strange, conditions that do not belong in administration, neither here nor anywhere else.

Göteborgs-Posten is living a fairly good life, as far as I know. The newspaper was run for many generations by the Hjörne family but is now run by the company Stampen. They also have a number of local newspapers, including Kungsbacka-Posten, Hallands Nyheter, and Hallandsposten. I guess that if what happened in Alingsås had happened in Kungsbacka, Kungsbacka-Posten would have received a portion of these resources. It is obviously good, but it also means that two newspapers, Norra Halland and Kungsbacka-Posten, have several advantages. Neither of them is distinctly red-green or stands close to me politically, but it is fantastic that both exist.

It is a fundamental prerequisite for democracy that the entire population has good opportunities to participate in the debate and to follow social developments and politics at local, regional, and national levels. By further modernizing the media support, we can create real conditions for an independent and scrutinizing journalism and a diversity of media across the entire country.

Madam Speaker! This leads us unintentionally to another part of the report, namely that which concerns threats and hate against both elected officials and journalists among others. I have no idea whether investigative journalists constitute a more vulnerable group, but it is at least remarkable that four out of ten journalists in a 2019 survey said that they had refrained from reporting on events or specific topics in order to avoid being subjected to threats and hate. Four out of ten, Madam Speaker, is simply terrible. So we cannot have that.

We need an action plan to move forward here, preferably based on the work that was done during the previous government. It is impossible to escape the thought that what may look like individual attacks on individual people very well could be parts of organized attacks with the aim to divide us and make us hesitate.

Madam Speaker! In this context, it is almost inevitable to also say something about the large platforms, namely our beloved and hated social media. People all over the world have received new opportunities to make themselves heard, but over time it has shown that the platforms may not be as neutral and welcoming to free speech as it first appeared. Not without unease do I remember the images from President Trump's inauguration in January, where the owners and CEOs of the platform giants crowded the front row to show their reverence and conviction about where the country was headed.

What might previously have seemed suspicious has become completely obvious: My X account has been transformed into a stream, or maelstrom, of posts that primarily tell me that I am wrong.

We in Miljöpartiet, of course, follow the developments closely. This applies not only to X but also to the large platforms, the developments within the EU, and our own committee initiative regarding a bit of order concerning the parties' communication, which Mauricio Rojas also touched upon. We must have an order for it, and it can be reasonable that the parties' political messages have a clear sender, of course without that causing one to come into conflict with freedom of speech legislation.

There is much more to say about this. We need to find time to talk about these issues. They are important and will become all the more important in the future.

Finally, Madam Speaker, we have the question of the voluntary constitutional protection through publication certificates, i.e., that which makes it possible to sell sensitive personal data to anyone under the guise of it fundamentally being about journalistic activity. It is problematic.

These data, which in themselves are not protected, can constitute serious violations of personal privacy and can be used deliberately or unintentionally to harm individuals, whether they are job seekers, dating partners, or neighbors. In other cases, it may involve organized crime that in various ways seeks to map out people's potential past negligences or illnesses.

This, Madam Speaker, is not something we need, and I see to my delight that a number of parties here are focused on and want to discuss how we shall in the future find ways to limit the possibilities of providing sensitive information in that manner.

I move for approval of reservation 14. With this, I believe I express an insight that there are many parties here who want to discuss the design of media support also in the future. That in itself is pleasing.

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

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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