Freedom of the press and expression, mass media issues

Lars Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal for a decision.

Today's debate touches upon several very important and current parameters in the rapidly changing world we now live in, with a news consumption that is completely 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 very extensive freedom of the press and freedom of expression, which is something we should be proud of and safeguard.

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

Mr. Speaker! This has become a rather complex area in many ways in light of 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 what is often referred to as fake news. It is a development we must be observant of so that it does not lead to a distortion of the information that reaches our consumers and, in the long run, affects our democracy negatively. It is also something that does not only affect smaller players in the field but also our historically larger media actors and traditional media.

In recent years, we have been able to see an increasingly diminished trust in certain traditional media, and there are discussions about an opinion corridor. It is perceived that there exist topics that Swedish established media do not highlight 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 at least partially still be traced to the fact that traditional media have not fully and completely described the reality that a part of our citizens have experienced. A number of these alternative media have simply highlighted both news and perspectives that individual groups of consumers have experienced as missing in the traditional media landscape.

Unfortunately, this has led to increased polarization. It is unfortunate when some perhaps completely reject traditional media and only rely on alternative media, or vice versa. It is naturally worrying for those of us who desire a more nuanced picture of reality.

Here we want to strive for information gathering with a great breadth of perspectives and varied sources. Such a breadth gives us better opportunities to land on a well-balanced perception of societal development and can lead to increased opportunities to understand and interact with people with other perceptions or analyses of reality.

We do not live in a world that is black and white. Rather, it is a multitude of different gray zones. We believe that this breadth leads to a more nuanced climate of debate. It is also crucial for developing an ability to independently form an opinion on 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.

Mr. Speaker! I shall say a few words about media support, which, given the number of motions under this heading, seems to generate great interest. Free and independent media are cornerstones in a democracy, with the responsibility to both scrutinize those in power and inform citizens about current events. The media landscape has changed radically in recent years, with growing social media and reduced advertising revenues and fewer subscribers for newspapers. The death of newspapers is a frequent topic of conversation, not least in the regional and local press.

The most important measure to address this dilemma has been to review the somewhat outdated press and media support. The focus on national press and daily newspapers is somewhat 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 previous bill A sustainable media support for the whole country. In connection with that investigation, the importance of precisely local and regional journalism throughout the country was highlighted. A democratic prerequisite for local authorities to be able to be scrutinized in an effective way is that the more local orientation of the media support is supported.

The media market is changing at a rapid pace, which is why media support needs to be dynamic even in the future. That it is now being restructured to focus more on the local and regional level, we believe will lead to it becoming more purposeful. Requirements are placed on local newsrooms and a high concentration of self-produced material.

Mr. Speaker! Based on the number of motions addressed in the report, perhaps freedom of expression on the internet and the regulation of the tech giants are the most engaging issues. Here, I believe the committee's position is very sound. As on previous occasions, the Committee on the Constitution emphasizes the importance of the constitutionally regulated freedom of information and expression and advocates for solutions that, in the first stage, are based on voluntariness.

With this said, we in Sweden, just as in the EU, shall continue to work for freedom of expression even digitally in order to primarily prevent disinformation, naturally, but we also call improper information influence and criminal activity.

The EU is continuously taking measures to adapt and harmonize responsibility rules for the very large online platforms in order to ensure transparency and counter disinformation online. It is an ongoing work that we reasonably must keep a watchful eye on in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I maintain that the committee's position in the report as a whole lands on a very good analysis. The new law has only been in place for a couple of years, which is why it is of importance that the Media Authority, according to its mandate, follows up on the new media system and makes an assessment of the effects of the support to ensure that this support fulfills its purpose. When this follow-up is in place, we will certainly have further opportunities to deal with the matter, in more detail.

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

Peter Hedberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Every Friday at 8:00 PM, I usually see a program where the question is asked: Where are we headed? Now I understand that the Chamber is wondering: Where is he headed with this?

Recently, the program managed to reach two of the season's highlights. One week, my hometown Kramfors was one of the destinations, which I naturally scored ten points for. And the week after, they asked a question about what the four Swedish fundamental laws are. To my great disappointment, the hosts chose to help the participants on the fly and in advance give them both the Freedom of the Press Act and the Freedom of Expression Act. Then only the Instrument of Government and the Act of Succession remained. I am naturally biased as both a social studies teacher and a member of KU, but I can think that the participants should have managed all four without assistance.

Mr. Speaker! This introduction, which largely became a TV review, was my approach to the subject of this debate, namely freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

Colleagues in previous debates – and also Lars Andersson initially – have pointed out that we live in a very restless time. There are serious challenges in Sweden and in the rest of the world linked specifically to the freedom of the press and freedom of speech legislation, and these are addressed in the motion report we are now debating.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to move for the approval of the Social Democrats' reservation 1, which concerns freedom of expression on the internet and the regulation of the tech giants.

The large digital platforms have become important intermediaries of free speech and are part of the democratic conversation. They have enabled more citizens to exchange information and opinions and to scrutinize those in power, but also to challenge long-established paradigms regarding news and information dissemination. But it cannot be ignored that the platforms also earn very large sums of money from polarizing content. It results in disinformation as well as hate and threats against opponents, politicians, and journalists. It has become a cash cow for certain interests.

As legislators, we must place higher demands on the platforms regarding user knowledge, for law enforcement purposes. It is also reasonable that providers of these services know who is behind the accounts and can thus prevent algorithms from being manipulated. It is reasonable that troll factories are not allowed to roam freely in order to create false opinions. We Social Democrats believe that this should be achieved through legislation at the EU level and that Sweden should be leading in the continued work.

Given the situation we have seen in Sweden in recent years, it is naturally absolutely crucial that we, with full force from this chamber, ensure that we counteract the possibility of criminal assignments being conveyed via online actors. There must be tangible consequences if the actors do not take their responsibility in that matter.

Mr. Speaker! I understand that there are objections to regulations. It is often a legitimate concern that is raised in connection with precisely freedom of speech. I believe that one should take concern and criticism seriously when it comes from citizens who raise questions out of respect for what is regulated in the Instrument of Government and in our other constitutional laws. But when the criticism comes from those with strong profit interests, we as legislators should stop and reflect. We must analyze what those with these interests actually want and what the main purpose is, and actually be able to justify our own well-founded positions that are based on the best interests of the citizens and democracy. For democracy to be able to continue to be strong, we simply need to stand up for clear and well-balanced regulations.

Mr. Speaker! There is another issue that has been debated in very many rounds in this chamber. It was one of the first debates that I participated in when I was new to the Riksdag, in 2022. It concerns the issue of personal data and so-called search services. It has been on the agenda for many years. We have eyes on us from the EU, and the legislative proposals that have been placed on the Riksdag's table to address the requirements that the EU actually places on us regarding privacy legislation have been voted down.

New investigations have been commissioned, one of which presented its report in the autumn of 2024. That investigation proposed changes to the constitution to handle privacy issues. This has been prepared in the Government Offices for a longer period, but the government has now announced that it does not intend to proceed with the proposals for changes to the constitution. Instead, they intend to investigate the issue of search services and privacy again to see if it can be regulated in ordinary law.

I regret that the government chooses to put this on the back burner and that there has been no dialogue with the opposition on the issue. The Social Democrats' position is still that citizens' privacy must be strengthened and that it is completely unreasonable that criminals can precisely map out individuals' living conditions to commit crimes against both property and person.

Sweden still has the eyes of the European Commission on it. It is a partially unclear legal situation. And it is unfortunate for us Social Democrats and others in the opposition that, in this matter, we practically only have to contend with a debate article published in a major newspaper where the Minister for Justice and representatives for the other Tidö parties announced that they do not intend to proceed with the proposals but plan to investigate the issue anew.

I would have liked to discuss the issue further. But the Minister for Justice is coming to our committee next week, and then we will have the opportunity to ask further questions and deliberate on this. From the Social Democrats' side, we want to emphasize that we are prepared to find constructive solutions. This is an important issue to address so that Sweden does not end up in a conflict with the EU.

(Applause)

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

Susanne Nordström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the rejection of all motions.

At the end of last year, I stood in this speaker's chair and spoke about the EU's new regulation on political advertising, which entered into force on 10 October 2025. One of the most important changes concerns how personal data is used. No one shall receive political advertising targeted at them without having requested it themselves. The Government therefore submitted a proposal for a new law, which the Riksdag decided on, with supplementary national provisions that entered into force on 1 January 2026. That was what I told you about then.

We have heard it before from this rostrum, and I will also say it: Disinformation is not desirable – on that, we are probably all in agreement. But recent times have shown that even large parties lose their way when scrutiny and facts are not taken seriously. Therefore, it is important that we build resilience, not just in society but also in politics.

On July 1, 2025, a code of conduct was integrated into the DSA – in Swedish, it is the regulation on digital services. This means that the platforms' work against disinformation becomes directly auditable and legally binding.

The digital development has given us enormous opportunities but also new and very tangible threats to people's privacy. Today, a single search service can make it possible to map out an individual's address, relationship status, phone number and even old judgments in a few seconds.

That large amounts of personal data are available online is a powerful tool – both for good and for evil. Companies and authorities need to be able to perform background checks to protect themselves against infiltration and undue influence. At the same time, we risk criminals using search services to map out crime victims or to know where and when it is clear to commit burglaries.

That is why the government in 2023 commissioned an inquiry into the constitutional protection for search services with a publishing license. Some services are used legitimately by both the public and private sectors, while others publish large amounts of personal data that can be misused. The inquiry proposed that such services should be exempted from constitutional protection and instead be covered by GDPR.

The proposal has rightly sparked debate. Here, privacy and freedom of speech meet. Furthermore, a case is ongoing in the EU Court of Justice that could be decisive for future regulation. It would therefore be inappropriate to change the constitution before the legal situation has been clarified. To await the EU Court of Justice's ruling and not proceed with the commission's proposal is, at this point, well-considered.

The problems nevertheless remain. The need for functioning background checks is great, and today's regulatory framework is unclear. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's judgments in February make it more difficult for search services to operate as they did previously. Therefore, the government has appointed a new inquiry to take a holistic approach to background checks with clear rules that work. The purpose is to stop infiltration and criminal influence in both the public and private sectors, while simultaneously protecting personal privacy.

Today, criminals are trying to gain access to workplaces to influence decisions, spread information, and benefit their activities. This is unacceptable. The investigation shall therefore ensure that relevant information can be used legally and that the regulatory framework becomes clearer and more legally secure. This is necessary to protect particularly vulnerable operations from infiltration and other security threats. The assignment shall be reported in March 2027.

This question is extremely complex, and that is why it is sensible not to make it too easy for ourselves. We must always think one step further about what the consequences will be. In the future, we will have more sophisticated technology that the public will want to use, but the criminals will also want to do so. I am quite certain we will address these topics here in the chamber many more times in the future. Fundamentally, change is the only constant in life.

Mr. Speaker! The EU's Action Plan for Democracy from 2020 is a clear signal that Europe's democracies must be strengthened where they are most vulnerable. The Action Plan covers three central areas: free and fair elections, strong and independent media, and resilience against disinformation.

An important part of this work is to protect those who participate in public discourse. Therefore, in April 2024, the EU's new directive against so-called SLAPP processes was adopted, which are strategic lawsuits against those who participate in public debate. The directive gives journalists, whistleblowers, and civil society the protection they need. No one shall be silenced with legal threats. If this passes in the Riksdag, Sweden will introduce the directive into Swedish law on 1 May 2026. It is a modern, powerful tool against the forces that want to stifle free speech.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, the work to strengthen the backbone of democracy nationally continues. The new national strategy against violence-promoting extremism and terrorism brings together preventive work, protection, and preparedness under the same umbrella. The fundamental rights and freedoms of the Constitution are at the center. No one should have to fear for their life, their safety, or their freedom to express their opinions.

Democracy is not a given. We have seen several proofs of this in recent times. It is not defended by itself but requires courage, responsibility, and clear principles. In a time when disinformation spreads faster than ever, when journalists and opinion leaders are subjected to threats and hate, and when extremists try to exploit the justice system as a weapon, we must stand firm on the principle that Sweden shall be a free, safe, and democratic nation.

The police have built up specialist groups against threats to democracy, the Media Agency monitors journalists' safety, and Linnaeus University strengthens journalists' ability to handle threats and hate – especially against female journalists. This is pragmatic, concrete, and results-oriented policy.

We know that freedom requires defense and that democracy requires responsibility. Sweden must always stand strong against the forces that want to destroy the free, open society. We do not accept silence. We do not accept threats. We defend free speech, our institutions, and every citizen's right to live in a free and secure society.

(Applause)

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 11.

People who can freely express their opinions to one another in conversations at the workplace, at a town square meeting, or in the media are the greatest threat to the world's dictators. When people dare to talk about the problems they see in society and about their desire for change, it is indeed the seed of organizing. It is when we discover that many of us think alike that we can become strong and dare more.

Right now we see it clearly in Iran. A regime that knows it is not liked must silence people's voices before they become too many. Previously, when one could ban a newspaper, imprison journalists and smash printing presses, it was simpler. Now, every person with a mobile phone and an internet connection can film, photograph and spread information about what is happening. Now that we see that Iran has shut down the internet and mobile traffic, the concern grows for what is really happening there. The rest of the world must, of course, demand that information can once again be spread within and from the country.

We also see it in Gaza. A prerequisite for Israel to be able to carry out its war crimes has been to ban foreign journalists and to kill the Palestinian reporters who have done their best to make the world react to the ongoing genocide. They have precision-bombed residences and tents where journalists have lived and sniped people with press vests. The press vest, which previously was a protection for democracy and a safety, has instead become a death trap.

Mr. Speaker! Yesterday, Reporters Without Borders presented their report for 2025, and it is also a frightening read. More than half of the world's population lives in countries where press freedom is threatened. Over 500 journalists have been imprisoned, and 67 have been killed. More and more countries are moving in an authoritarian direction.

It makes it even harder for Swedish journalists to monitor our world and provide us with the news reporting and important knowledge that we want. We saw this, for example, in our time when the journalist Joakim Medin was imprisoned in Turkey. Even though he has been released and is home, he still has charges hanging over him, and it is unclear whether he will at all be able to work as a journalist in the world at large in the future. It is actually something bizarre that it is not just any country, but Sweden's NATO partner Turkey that is exercising these threats against one of our journalists in the country.

Even in stable democracies like ours, there are difficult challenges and considerations that need to be made to find a balance between preserving our freedoms and rights online and protecting people's privacy and our democracy. One such complicated issue, which previous speakers have touched upon, is which personal data companies should be allowed to provide online. Right now, companies earn quite a lot of money by collecting public data about us. Sometimes it is sensitive information, such as previous convictions, but even seemingly innocent data about address, age, and marital status can be exploited by criminals looking for places and people to rob.

Despite all reports on how this has been abused, as well as the EU legislation in the area and a number of government inquiries, the government has now announced that it does not intend to move forward with the promised proposals to rectify the situation. It is regrettable and somewhat surprising, even though it was a while ago that I read the debate article. It also risks becoming quite expensive. In the long run, there is a risk that the EU will not only threaten with fines but also demand fines if Sweden does not address this issue and better protects sensitive personal data. It is also regrettable that the government does not choose to act to protect the many different vulnerable groups in society who are exploited in this system, especially the elderly who, for example, are subjected to both violence and theft.

A year ago, the government parties agreed to close the exception in the constitution that allows search services to disseminate personal data without the person's consent. In previous investigations, all parties have supported the proposals intended to rectify this deficiency. Since the search services operate with support from the constitution, an amendment of it is required. Now, that deadline has passed. This means it will be four more years until the next opportunity.

I believe the government needs to take to heart the criticism that came just a few days ago from PRO and other pensioner organizations that this could have serious consequences for their members. In Huskvarna, the police suspect that one or more perpetrators have been active over the last few weeks and targeted specifically people over 80 years old. When it comes to fraud – but also robberies, as in this case – there is furthermore a large number of unreported cases. There are many who are ashamed that they fell for a fake email or a call from someone who claimed to be from the bank or similar. We know that many information campaigns are carried out to inform the public that one should not trust those who, for example, wish that one should authenticate themselves online.

Mr. Speaker! An adjacent issue that also concerns our freedom online is how one can be able to stop the disinformation and spread of hate and threats that constitute a threat to democracy without making interventions that undermine our civil rights. When our perception of what is happening in the world is increasingly based on reporting in social media and when opinions spread faster than ever, it also becomes important to understand the algorithms behind the spread and which interests govern the flows. Today, it is a few large tech companies, or perhaps even a few men, who control the platforms that dominate our digital everyday life.

It becomes truly frightening when the owners of tech companies buy themselves a seat at the table of political power to avoid regulations and furthermore use their platforms to influence elections and encourage extremism and polarization. I noted an example just yesterday. A powerful man in the world received criticism. He responded by saying that he intended to perhaps buy up the company from which the criticism came. It is a very strange time we are living in at the moment.

Based on that, we support the proposal to appoint an inquiry to analyze the global platform companies' impact on democracy and how the protection of democracy can be strengthened. Such an inquiry needs to get underway promptly to meet the increased problems that disinformation, propaganda, and influence operations entail. Furthermore, this year is an election year. Together with many others in my party and certainly also many others in this chamber, I am seriously concerned that there is a risk that this will have consequences in the form of election influence even in Sweden and not just in countries in our global environment.

Mr. Speaker! As a counterweight to the rapid clips spread online with unclear sources, traditional scrutinizing news media are needed. In a sparsely populated country like Sweden, public support has been needed to guarantee local journalism across the entire country. Two years ago, as a previous speaker mentioned, a new system was proposed for financial support to the private news media. Several of us in the opposition warned then that the new media support risked resulting in a media death. Unfortunately, we have been right.

We believe that the diversity of national newspapers needs to be protected and we have a motion regarding that. But several media outlets that contribute to diversity in the public debate have already been forced to close down. One example is the liberal newspaper Nu. I truly regret that Nu was closed down, even though I was not among its readers. It was one of the newspapers that contributed to a broader collective debate.

I realize that I am giving an all too long speech – I apologize. But I want to emphasize that there were other things that Vänsterpartiet warned about when decisions were being made regarding the introduction of the new media support. Everyone agreed that a new support was required, given the new digital media and that people now might not necessarily read a paper newspaper. But I note, for example, that even newspapers concerning national minorities now do not receive support. That was something that Vänsterpartiet warned about and that one could have easily rectified.

Mr. Speaker! When political forces in Sweden and in our surrounding world fuel the authoritarian development, we need to collectively achieve a large and strong political counter-reaction.

We in Vänsterpartiet have previously submitted a motion to enable a center for investigative journalism. To give some praise to others, I want to say that it is very pleasing that it is now underway. But we in Vänsterpartiet believe that funds and more support are also required. It is a problem that the media support is not fully distributed to the media that exist in society but goes back to the Ministry of Finance. Vänsterpartiet has in its budget proposal half a billion more for the media support than the government has. It may obviously sound like a large sum, but it is a low price to guarantee that more areas receive news coverage and quality journalism, which strengthens our democracy.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In this debate, I will proceed from the reality that shows why questions of freedom of the press and freedom of expression and mass media are so important.

More than every fourth child reports that they have been subjected to cyberbullying. Mental ill-health is increasing among young people, especially among girls, and is often linked to social media. Sweden's government decided in October 2025 to task an investigator with analyzing the conditions for introducing an age limit for children's use of social media in order to strengthen the protection of children's health and safety in digital environments.

In this matter, Denmark is a pioneer. There, it was already decided in November to introduce an age limit of 15 years for social media. The stated purpose is to protect children from algorithms and addictive features and to reduce negative psychological impact.

In Australia, a ban was decided in December 2025 for children under 16 to use social media. The purpose is also there to protect young people from harmful content. Platforms such as Tiktok, Instagram, Youtube, Snapchat, X, Reddit and Facebook must now actively prevent minors from creating accounts, otherwise they risk fines.

There are those who question whether such restrictions are compatible with the freedom of expression and the press, but it needs to be put into relation to the fact that it concerns children, who are much more impressionable than adults. It is therefore very welcome that the government has now appointed an inquiry into how an age limit for social media can be introduced even in Sweden, for the sake of children and young people.

Mr. Speaker! This debate concerns a motion report. The Christian Democrats support the government's policy. Several of the motions highlight important aspects, but sensitive trade-offs may need to be made between the different proposals and the constitutionally protected issues of freedom of the press and freedom of expression in relation to EU law.

For example, the EU Commission has developed guidelines to support platforms accessible to minors regarding meeting the requirements in the DSA, Digital Services Act. There is now an app for age verification, adapted to the national conditions of each member state. In this way, it becomes possible to prove one's age through an electronic certificate when the person wants to use online services where there are age restrictions.

The EU has also developed a code of conduct against disinformation that has been signed by a number of online platforms. These platforms are required to report annually on their measures in the work to combat disinformation. The Commission has initiated several formal proceedings against online platforms for suspected violations of the DSA, for example related to the protection of minors. As recently as October 2025, the Commission made a preliminary finding that TikTok and Meta disregarded various obligations under the DSA, such as making it easy for users to report illegal content.

Much remains to be done to protect freedom of expression but also to counter disinformation and, not least, violations online.

Mr. Speaker! How far should the constitutional protection of the principle of public access extend? Is it reasonable that criminals should be able to target suitable victims through information that is easily accessible via search services on the internet, such as vehicle registers or address registers linked to personal identity numbers, telephone numbers, age, and marital status? No, it is not reasonable. Therefore, the government has commissioned an investigation into the constitutional protection for search services that make personal data public.

The investigation proposes that the existing exception in the constitutional acts on media for search services that publish sensitive personal data be expanded to cover all personal data. The report has been submitted for consultation. As the legal situation is unclear, the government now intends to investigate the possibility of regulating via ordinary law without changing the constitutional acts.

At the other end of this spectrum lies background checks of employees. It is already mandatory to conduct background checks of persons who are to work with children and young people, but the obligation does not apply to those who are to work within other vulnerable areas, such as elderly care. There is also no rule regarding the follow-up of any judgments handed down during an ongoing employment.

Recently, terrible stories have emerged about how elderly women have been sexually harassed or even raped by care staff. None of us want our children or our elderly mother to be cared for by persons who have previously been convicted of sexual assault. It is therefore good that the government has appointed an inquiry to examine the possibility of performing background checks in both public and private operations before and during employment.

Mr. Speaker! Our constitutional laws rightly carry very great weight. There are good reasons why we in the Riksdag have made a deliberate decision to make it more difficult to change or repeal constitutional laws. But it is also important to be open to the fact that changes can be necessary when time and societal development change the landscape.

It was likely not in the legislators' imagination that the principle of public access could be used to map out private individuals' finances and corner potential crime victims in the way we have seen in recent years. Just as little could one have sensed that children, via constantly present mobile phones, would be subjected to systematic bullying, harassment, and extortion for sexual exploitation in school or in the safety of the home through various network chats that do not leave the child in peace even after the parents' goodnight hug.

These examples show why it is so important to constantly have a living discussion about where the boundaries should be drawn and when it is time to make adjustments in the legislation. It is important for the sake of our children and our elderly, and for everyone who risks being subjected to online fraud and exploitation under the cloak of freedom of expression, freedom of the press, or the principle of public access.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and rejection of all motions.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! This week's most common sentence is perhaps "We live in an unusual time." I think I too shall begin with that: We live in an unusual time. It is so unusual that we do not know how the situation has developed since we sat down here in the chamber. Trump may have landed in Davos and expressed an opinion.

Mr. Speaker! When we in the Center Party formulated our committee motion just over a year ago, and what we have as the basis for today's debate, we weighed every single word on a gold scale. We wanted to point out systemic errors without appearing alarmist. We wanted to warn of risks without painting a doomsday scenario. But today we can state that reality has not only caught up with us but has run past us. The current situation is significantly darker now than we could have imagined, and our entire perception of the international world order is being shaken to its foundations.

I intend to focus on what our reservation 2 concerns, that is to say, the issue of freedom of expression and a regulation of the tech giants.

We live in a time where the rules-based order, the one that has protected small countries like Sweden, is being replaced by something else entirely, namely the right of the strongest. We live in a time where political power in Washington and digital power in Silicon Valley have entered into an unholy alliance. Expressens editorial page wrote very well about this the other day. There, our acute situation was described with the words "Trump can shut down Sweden in an hour." It is not a theoretical headline, but it is a description of a national vulnerability that the Centerpartiet's reservation in this report aims to address.

Mr. Speaker! The Center Party's primary focus in the report concerns our reservation regarding freedom of expression on the internet and the need to regulate the global tech giants. But I would like to rephrase it and say that it is about Sweden's digital sovereignty.

For a long time, we viewed social media as neutral platforms for free speech. But today we see that they are something else entirely. They are geopolitical actors with a power that completely challenges sovereign nation-states. We see a development where a US president can control our algorithms, which affect what we see and read and which shape our worldview, through a simple phone call to a friend in the tech elite.

When Elon Musk uses his platform as a personal political weapon or when Mark Zuckerberg openly signals that he intends to cooperate with President Trump to undermine European laws such as the DSA, we realize that the law of the strongest is already here. We have seen what it means in practice. In Canada, Meta simply pulled the plug on news distribution and took an entire democracy's flow of information hostage in a business deal.

In a world where disinformation is a strategic weapon, we cannot accept that the Swedish people's access to the truth rests on a foreign billionaire's whims or on an American administration's political agenda.

Centerpartiet demands that the individual be given the power to turn off the algorithms that today reward hate, division, and foreign influence. This chamber must be able to guarantee that Swedish freedom of speech is not a service Sweden rents from Silicon Valley, but must be a right that we here at home ourselves own.

Mr. Speaker! This new world order requires that we also review how we protect our own voices. This leads me to the Center Party's reservations regarding foreign direct investments and security for opinion leaders.

The Tidö parties say no to the Center Party's demand to review foreign acquisitions of Swedish media companies. They argue that it would threaten freedom of the press. But we argue the opposite, that the real threat to free speech is to leave the door wide open for authoritarian powers or unpredictable foreign interests to be able to buy up our local journalism and our largest media houses.

Today we have laws that protect our power grids and our ports against hostile investments, so why then leave the information infrastructure unprotected? In a time when the Trump administration uses economic pressure as a primary tool, Sweden needs a legal emergency brake. We cannot allow free media to become pawns in a global power game.

At the same time, we see how the law of the strongest seeps into daily conversation. When the rhetoric from the highest levels in the USA normalizes pointing out journalists as the people's enemy, an environment is created where hate and threats become commonplace for Swedish media workers.

Centerpartiet wants to see sharpened measures for the security of opinion leaders, because if we cannot protect those who stand on the front line for the truth, the rest of the defensive walls will soon fall.

Mr. Speaker! The world has changed and is constantly changing. We can no longer cling to a naivety that belongs in a time that no longer exists. Changes to laws should take time and be made with wisdom, but the speed at which the world changes must also make us rethink. The right of the strongest now challenges us on every screen and in every algorithmic flow.

Express's warning that we can be shut down in an hour is a call for political action. We can choose to sit still in the boat and hope that the storm in Washington abates. Or we can act to build Swedish resilience.

The Center Party's motions are about giving Sweden the tools to stand up for itself. They are about regulating the tech giants, protecting our media houses against hostile takeovers, and securing safety for those who dare to speak freely. We weighed our words on a gold scale when we wrote these motions. Now it is time for the Riksdag to show the same seriousness. It is about Sweden's sovereignty, Sweden's truth, and Sweden's future.

I vote in favor of reservation 2.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal in the report we are now debating.

In the report, many important issues are addressed, but in this speech, I will limit myself to two issues of principle that are of particular importance for us Liberals.

The first concerns the political parties' responsibility for how social media is used. As is known, TV4's Kalla fakta noted in May 2024 that the Sverigedemokraterna communications department operated a number of anonymous accounts on social media. On some of these accounts, they had acted disrespectfully and expressed themselves in a derogatory manner regarding opponents in several parties.

The investigation and the subsequent debate shed light on a phenomenon that should not exist in Sweden but unfortunately does, and which has also occurred previously. Of course, political parties have the right to express their opinions in the manner they choose. But a fundamental democratic principle is that they must also clearly stand by their communication.

The Liberals therefore reacted powerfully in order to curb a development that in the long run threatens the foundations of democratic dialogue. We clarified that we were prepared to legislate on the issue if the parties could not agree on a voluntary code of conduct where anonymity and lack of transparency in parties' communication are clearly rejected. Since then, important progress has been made in this direction, not least within the working group led by our Liberal MP Malin Danielsson.

That is why it was so disheartening when TV4 Nyheternas investigation in November 2025 found that the Social Democrats spread political messages via a network of their own sites and social media accounts without it clearly appearing that a party-owned media company is the sender. The investigation also showed that the party's media company publishes political messages designed as if they were objective editorial content on platforms such as Facebook and Instagram. In this way, the party can bypass the tech giant Meta's ban on political advertisements and simultaneously mislead users on these platforms.

This is completely unacceptable conduct from Sweden's largest party. Furthermore, it is an example of bottomless hypocrisy, especially in light of Magdalena Andersson's previous sharp condemnation of the Sweden Democrats' anonymous accounts.

Mr. Speaker! The second issue I wish to address concerns the state of the freedom that is absolutely crucial for democracy: freedom of expression. Sweden has a proud tradition of freedom of expression but also a significantly less honorable history, which unfortunately makes itself felt in our day.

The bright side is best exemplified by the Freedom of the Press Act of 1766 – the world's first of its kind – which has rightly been included as a UNESCO World Heritage site.

The darker side can be illustrated by Sweden's actions towards the Nazi authorities in Berlin, both before and during the Second World War.

After the spring of 1933, when no direct threat existed to Sweden's security, Per Albin Hansson and his government advocated a strict policy of silence regarding the Nazis' atrocities. It went so far that Per Albin Hansson, together with Foreign Minister Rickard Sandler, one year before the outbreak of the war, sent a confidential message to the media where they were urged to depict Germany with due consideration for the country's own interests and without using superlatives or intentionally offensive expressions. This applied to Nazism.

This line was deepened during the war and led to flagrant encroachments on freedom of speech. During the war, around 320 confiscations of newspapers and periodicals were carried out without prior trial. 55 indictments were filed for crimes against the Freedom of the Press Act. Six newspapers were given transport bans – in some cases for up to three years.

Brochures and books were confiscated, including Polens martyrium, the first book that described the German atrocities, which had already cost around 700,000 Polish Jews their lives and which revealed the use of gassing as an extermination method in concentration camps such as Auschwitz.

To the government's repression must be added the extensive self-censorship – self-discipline, as Per Albin Hansson called it in his speech on September 1, 1939 – that prevailed in the media, as well as the active cooperation from prominent journalists such as Dagens Nyheter's editor-in-chief Sten Dehlgren.

Mr. Speaker! The policy of adaptation has been a recurring threat to freedom of speech and has shaped a Swedish "hedgehog line" long after the war's end. It manifested in Sweden's submissive stance towards the Soviet Union's occupation of the Baltics – in practice until the fall of the Berlin Wall – and has been re-actualized in relation to those who, in the name of religion and not infrequently through violent actions, demand that we curb our freedoms.

The most obvious example is the reactions following Jyllands-Postens publication of the Muhammad cartoons in 2005. At that time, our hedgehog reflex was activated immediately, in contrast to Denmark's dignified defense of its freedoms. Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen even refused to receive the ambassadors from Muslim countries who demanded an apology.

The contrast with our country's Foreign Minister Laila Freivalds was stark. She contributed to the Sverigedemokraterna website being shut down when they launched their own caricature competition, and she also personally apologized to 16 Muslim ambassadors for a caricature in SD-Kuriren. Freivalds was, however, as Sakine Madon reminds us in her very readable book Till kättarens försvar, not alone in this context.

The Press Ombudsman Yrsa Stenius described the publication in Jyllands-Posten as gross lack of judgment and as an abuse of freedom of the press, the Chancellor of Justice Göran Lambertz proposed a global UN agreement to work towards ensuring that media refrain from unnecessarily violating religions and their representatives and so on.

Mr. Speaker! These events expose a sad continuity that is once again becoming relevant today. This time, however, Denmark has chosen the opposite path. Following the Quran burnings, the Folketing adopted a law in December 2023 that criminalizes the improper treatment of important religious texts. In practice, it is about reintroducing the blasphemy ban that was abolished as recently as 2017.

In Sweden, the blasphemy ban – or the blasphemy offense, as it was called after 1948 – was abolished as early as 1970, with the justification: "A free and open debate on religious issues can only be to the benefit of society, even if an expansion of freedom of speech in this area means that means of expression will at times be used that may appear offensive to certain groups." So it stands in proposition 1970:125.

It is precisely this free and open debate that may appear offensive to certain groups who are now at stake. The hedgehog reflex is back, and demands for self-restraint and prohibitions are heard again from various sides. Now, voices are heard that even lament that the blasphemy ban disappeared from our legislation in 1970.

There is a clear line from Annie Lööf's statement in 2022 that the Quran burnings could be classified as hate speech, and Magdalena Andersson's statement here in the Riksdag in 2023 about adjusting the legislation on hate speech, to the Svea Court of Appeal's confirmation in November 2025 of the district court's judgment against Salwan Najem for hate speech.

As the freedom of speech expert Nils Funcke has pointed out, the district court's judgment was based on the fact that Najem, together with the murdered Salwan Momika, desecrated the Quran, made derogatory remarks about the prophet Muhammad, and portrayed Islam as a freedom of speech-hostile religion that stands for the oppression of women and terror, without any statements being directed at Muslims as a group.

The District Court claimed in this context that Najem's statements, by a clear margin, exceeded what constitutes a factual and reasonable debate and criticism of religion. That is to say: criticism of religion may be exercised, but only if it is factual and reasonable. This is a completely new principle in Swedish legal practice, and if it is accepted, it would lead to very extensive restrictions of freedom of speech.

According to the Svea Court of Appeal, the decisive question is whether it is possible to express contempt for a religion on a large scale without simultaneously expressing contempt for the practitioners of that religion. With this reasoning, the blasphemy ban has in practice resurfaced in Sweden. If this interpretation had applied previously, both the film Life of Brian and the exhibition Ecce homo in Uppsala Cathedral would have been regarded as incitement against a population group, not to mention Lars Vilks' rondellhund, Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, or the murdered Theo van Gogh's film Submission.

For us liberals, this is a deeply concerning development – a reinterpretation of our constitutional laws that risks taking us back to a time we believed belonged to the past.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When I write speeches, I usually write as an introduction: Thank you for the floor! It fits rarely well this time, because it struck me immediately after I had written it that it is not entirely self-evident that one gets the floor, that one gets the opportunity to make one's voice heard.

Several have pointed out that since we wrote motions and expressed opinions on freedom of speech on the internet and to what extent a regulation of the tech giants, especially the large companies, was needed, very much has happened – for the worse, one must unfortunately conclude.

The security policy situation has rather deteriorated – I only need to say Greenland – while Russia's illegal and large-scale invasion of Ukraine is soon entering its fifth year.

My green colleague from Germany in the European Parliament, Alexandra Geese, recently stated in a speech that the platforms X and TikTok truly highlight certain material, sometimes pure disinformation, at the expense of other things, without us users having requested it in any way. Late last night, a message came from her: I must almost apologize for my harsh tone, but I am forced once again to point out this: This is not something we should have. We must consider how we can strengthen European cooperation to achieve something that makes things better.

This is, of course, no coincidence. Power over social media or media in general has long been identified as crucial, for example, to contribute to creating division in Europe. We must ask ourselves why we accept business models for social media whose purpose is to create division. We would never have accepted that for other media. Democracy requires that we stand up and say what we think and that there is an opportunity to do so.

Mr. Speaker! We must fight for Europe's independence, and we must defend ourselves against these floods of disinformation and suspicion.

There we have the EU's Digital Services Act. Someone mentioned earlier what it is called in Swedish, but I have failed to remember it. It is, one could say, quite indirect and defensive – for good reasons, of course, but one could wish that the EU put down a bit more feet with a bit more emphasis. The law speaks of that the media giants shall counteract damage to the democratic processes and strengthen transparency and research, for example regarding how the algorithms affect dissemination and visibility. We thus note that it is not about promoting democracy but about counteracting that democracy is damaged.

Here at home, we speak of psychological defense, which is about building up society's resilience against disinformation and influence campaigns. This involves, among other things, increasing the population's ability to distinguish between reliable sources and sources that are not.

Today, it is difficult to know where these information campaigns come from. National and international actors, individuals, political organizations, and organized crime move in the same digital space, which leads to ambiguity about who should handle the threat. When social media platforms also make posts invisible by downranking certain content in the feeds, so-called shadow banning, it risks further limiting and eroding freedom of speech.

To meet this, a large cooperation network between relevant authorities is required, with due regard for personal privacy. A reinforcement of media and information literacy in society is also needed, among other things through increased teaching in primary and secondary school. Additionally, one or more relevant authorities should be tasked with developing a national strategy for strengthened resilience against disinformation and propaganda so that media and information literacy can be strengthened.

Furthermore, cooperation within the EU needs to continue in order to put pressure on the social media giants so that they do not allow disinformation to spread on their platforms and so that users can appeal shadow bans.

Mr. Speaker! The other day I received a message from Lennart Fernström. Perhaps there are not many outside the green circle who know who he is, but Lennart is the CEO of Mediehuset Grön Press and editor-in-chief of the newspaper Syre. We spoke a few years ago before the introduction of the new media support. As you remember, it was designed with gradually decreasing support so that a number of smaller newspapers outside the large corporations and newspapers with perspectives other than the purely local – for example, trade union, religious, and green, i.e., newspapers with a national target audience but with specific interests – can be forced to give up. Now he wrote to speak about the fact that three of the four newspapers within Grön Press are facing closure decisions, which naturally contributes to reduced media diversity.

It happens that I refer to the Instrument of Government Chapter 1, Section 1. The second sentence, the one that follows "All public power in Sweden derives from the people", reads: "Swedish democracy is based on free formation of opinion and on universal and equal suffrage."

It is two things, freedom of opinion and the right to vote. The latter, the right to vote, we safeguard with great care. We try all kinds of solutions so that accessibility and legitimacy shall be completely unassailable. It happens that things go wrong – not often, but when it does happen, we take it very seriously and try to find solutions so that it does not happen again, all of course at a budgeted cost. But when it comes to freedom of opinion, it is a bit less meticulous. That is probably partly due to the fact that the structure is different in terms of civil society, public education, social and other media as well as other forums for the exchange of opinions and reflection.

I think it is reasonable that the state takes some form of responsibility even for that structure. Of course, I do not mean that it should be state-owned or entirely funded by the state, but rather that the state should strive to be a good state and not just allow, but actually support, many different perspectives.

Mr. Speaker! This is where the media support comes into the picture. It concerns a newspaper such as Norra Halland in my hometown Kungsbacka, which is now being phased out by Stampens lokala tidningar. In the worst case, it concerns three out of four newspapers within Grön Press and many others.

All people, regardless of where in the country they live, shall have access to comprehensive news reporting of high quality. The conditions for independent investigative journalism need to be further strengthened. So-called white spots, that is, areas with weak journalistic coverage, need to be built away.

The new media support has resulted in weakened media diversity, I believe. The Government has not done enough to safeguard the support for the nationwide small and medium-sized newspapers, which are of great importance for diversity. To ensure a diversity of news media across the entire country, the new media support needs to be evaluated and updated and provided with more resources so that the goals are achieved.

Mr. Speaker! The report also contains a review of a number of motions that in different ways express great doubt as to whether it should be possible for private companies to offer privacy-sensitive information, such as criminal court judgments. Several others have spoken about this here, not least Member of Parliament Peter Hedberg in detail. I share the view that this is a very pressing issue.

I naturally stand behind all our reservations regarding the regulation of the tech giants and regarding the media support, but for the sake of time, I choose to move for approval only of reservation 4 regarding just this. With that, I also thank you for the floor.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

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