Slashdot Mirror

Really?
http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dok...
http://translate.google.se/tra...

I've read the bill and it is supposed to be enough to set the browser to allow cookies. The bill actually does not mention cookies at all. It is more generic to be technology independent.

If you read Swedish you can read the bill here http://www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/?nid=37&dok_id=GY03115

The bill does not mention cookies at all. It is more generic to be technology independent.

If you read Swedish you can read the bill here http://www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/?nid=37&dok_id=GY03115

All persons shall likewise be free, unless otherwise provided in this Act, to communicate information and intelligence on any subject whatsoever, for the purpose of publication in print, to an author or other person who may be deemed to be the originator of material contained in such printed matter, the editor or special editorial office, if any, of the printed matter, or an enterprise which professionally purveys news or other information to periodical publications.
All persons shall furthermore have the right, unless otherwise provided in this Act, to procure information and intelligence on any subject whatsoever, for the purpose of publication in print, or in order to communicate information under the preceding paragraph.

What I found more interesting was the stuff buried down in Chapter 7 where it's noted that

Art. 4. With due regard to the purpose of freedom of the press for all under Chapter 1, the following acts shall be deemed to be offences against the freedom of the press if committed by means of printed matter and if they are punishable under law:

4. unauthorised trafficking in secret information, whereby a person, with-out due authority but with no intent to assist a foreign power, conveys, consigns or discloses information concerning any circumstance of a secret nature, the disclosure of which to a foreign power could cause detriment to the defence of the Realm or the national supply of goods in the event of war or exceptional conditions resulting from war, or otherwise to the security of the Realm, regardless of whether the information is correct; any attempt or preparation aimed at such unauthorised trafficking in secret information;

That would seem to suggest that if Swedish defence is undermined by WikiLeaks then there are grounds for prosecution. As far as I know Sweden doesn't have forces in Iraq but they do have people in Afghanistan.

All persons shall likewise be free, unless otherwise provided in this Act, to communicate information and intelligence on any subject whatsoever, for the purpose of publication in print, to an author or other person who may be deemed to be the originator of material contained in such printed matter, the editor or special editorial office, if any, of the printed matter, or an enterprise which professionally purveys news or other information to periodical publications.
All persons shall furthermore have the right, unless otherwise provided in this Act, to procure information and intelligence on any subject whatsoever, for the purpose of publication in print, or in order to communicate information under the preceding paragraph.

What I found more interesting was the stuff buried down in Chapter 7 where it's noted that

Art. 4. With due regard to the purpose of freedom of the press for all under Chapter 1, the following acts shall be deemed to be offences against the freedom of the press if committed by means of printed matter and if they are punishable under law:

4. unauthorised trafficking in secret information, whereby a person, with-out due authority but with no intent to assist a foreign power, conveys, consigns or discloses information concerning any circumstance of a secret nature, the disclosure of which to a foreign power could cause detriment to the defence of the Realm or the national supply of goods in the event of war or exceptional conditions resulting from war, or otherwise to the security of the Realm, regardless of whether the information is correct; any attempt or preparation aimed at such unauthorised trafficking in secret information;

That would seem to suggest that if Swedish defence is undermined by WikiLeaks then there are grounds for prosecution. As far as I know Sweden doesn't have forces in Iraq but they do have people in Afghanistan.

Personuppgiftslagen / personal data law

Google translation (enhanced by hand ..)

Safety measures
31 The liable data manager must take appropriate technical and organizational measures to protect the personal data processed. These measures must achieve a level of security that is appropriate with regard to

a) the technical options available,
b) what it would cost to implement the actions;
c) the specific risks involved in the processing of personal data, and
d) how sensitive the treated personal information is.

When the liable data manager uses a personal data assistant, the liable data manager must ensure that the personal data assistant can implement the security measures required and ensure that the personal data assistant actually take those measures.

The regulatory authority may decide on security measures.

The swedish parliament does it. http://www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/index.aspx?nid=3912

There are however exceptions to which government documents are publicly available in Sweden. They can be secret if they concern:

* Threat to the safety of Sweden, in regard to other state.
* Central financial and monetary politics.
* Authorities own internal inspections and control.
* The interest to prevent or prove crime.
* Economic intrest of the public.
* Protection of personal or economic states for individual citizens.
* The interest to preserve species of animals and plats.

The highlighted bulled might be troublesome for the website in question. Perhaps the lists of requested IP-numbers can be labeled as secret?

Source (swedish)

This is in Sweden, not the USA. The US constitution does not apply.

But we do have all the content in First Amendment to the United States Constitution in our own constitution: semi-official translation of The Swedish Constitution (another easier to navigate translation), including a Freedom of The Press Act. It was not just the French Revolution you inspired in the 18th century, there was a lot of European countries that started to evolve their own parliamentarism(*).

These kind of texts are pretty impossible to translate perfectly from Swedish to English, unfortunatly it get even more tedious in the translation, but you get the general idea.

(*) We actually never had it as bad as the French, we have never ever had feudalism (the closest thing we had was the thrall system, it was graduatelly outlawed until 1335 and was never as bad as the continental feudal system). With the exception of a few short lived (literally) despots we had an almost-democracy with elected kings and queens (it was kind of like the US Presidency, but they usually had less power, was not elected for a specific period, had to have their own private army (or be buddies with people who had one) and only landowners could vote) until Christian the Tyrant 1520-21. A weaker kind of parliamentarism continued to exist even under the new era of hereditary monarcy (that was actually instituted by the man who defeatad Christian the Tyrant, Gustav Vasa). Oh, and every free man had the right to say whatever he wanted (freedom of speak), at least at the Ting (Tingsfrid), he could get killed afterwards though.

Quoted in entirety because it is informative, insightful, and the reason "countless news agencies" don't have anything to worry from profiting from the work they do. Be they Swedish or USA.

This is in Sweden, not the USA. The US constitution does not apply.

But we do have all the content in First Amendment to the United States Constitution in our own constitution: semi-official translation of The Swedish Constitution (another easier to navigate translation), including a Freedom of The Press Act. It was not just the French Revolution you inspired in the 18th century, there was a lot of European countries that started to evolve their own parliamentarism(*).

These kind of texts are pretty impossible to translate perfectly from Swedish to English, unfortunatly it get even more tedious in the translation, but you get the general idea.

(*) We actually never had it as bad as the French, we have never ever had feudalism (the closest thing we had was the thrall system, it was graduatelly outlawed until 1335 and was never as bad as the continental feudal system). With the exception of a few short lived (literally) despots we had an almost-democracy with elected kings and queens (it was kind of like the US Presidency, but they usually had less power, was not elected for a specific period, had to have their own private army (or be buddies with people who had one) and only landowners could vote) until Christian the Tyrant 1520-21. A weaker kind of parliamentarism continued to exist even under the new era of hereditary monarcy (that was actually instituted by the man who defeatad Christian the Tyrant, Gustav Vasa). Oh, and every free man had the right to say whatever he wanted (freedom of speak), at least at the Ting (Tingsfrid), he could get killed afterwards though.

But the laws can be changed, swiftly and easily, in a country that doesn't have a constitutional court or supreme court.

Constitution. Supreme Court. Or check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Sweden

Well, except for the USA
... and except for Sweden of course with the recent FRA-law

Regeringsformen, chapter 6 paragraph 2[Swedish]
"It is every citizens right to be protected against having to reveal ones opinions politically, religiously, culturally or in any similar area."

It is very hard to translate this to the letter, but I hope you do get the general intent of the law. FRA can not listen legally to its citizens, thereby revealing the citizens opinions on matters of politics, religion, culture and other areas. "Regeringsformen" trumps any other law since it is what we call a foundation law[Swedish]

Send them to Thomas Bodström aswell, he wants to read your mail!

http://www.riksdagen.se/Webbnav/index.aspx?nid=1111&iid=0581480697617

www.riksdagen.se

According to claims in the media, for instance Computer Sweden, there are strong reasons to believe that Försvarets Radioanstalt, FRA, already engaged in wiretapping of phone calls, despite the fact that there is no legal support for doing so. It is said that FRA already listens, or have listened, to phone calls transmitted wireless. That may include calls over the wired telecom network which may sometimes be routed over satellite or radio, and are thus possible to listen in on via radio recievers. Although this has not explicitly been illegal according to Swedish law, it has neither been explicitly permitted. According to FRA's former second in command, Anders Wik, The European Convention on human rights is interpreted such as wiretapping is illegal unless explicitly permitted by national law. Anders Wik is said to have commented the bill as "the task" (to listen in on conversations over radio) "have existed earlier, but will now be made legal.". Thus, there are strong reasons to believe that the FRA has engaged in wiretapping whose legality may be questioned. Will the Minister take any steps to investigate to what extent this has been done?

One interesting thing is however: Is it possible to become an election inspector without party preference? What are the requirements actually? Is it necessary to be a citizen or is it enough to be a permanent resident?

Below is something for those interested in political systems.... Stop here if you don't want anymore!

In Sweden where I live the procedure is a little different - you vote for the government, region and municipality at the same time using yellow (government), blue (regional) and white (municipality) ballots. Each party provides a pre-printed ballot and the voter sticks each into an envelope that is sealed by the voter. The ballots must be unfolded and unmarked except for a possible checkbox that can be checked for a name on the list on the ballot. Each envelope contains a small dent at the edge where the election inspector can see that no more than one ballot is inserted in the envelope. The inspectors takes the three envelopes and drops them into three different sealed boxes. When the voting is closed the boxes are opened and the envelopes in them are opened too and the counting begins. (A lot of hand-work here.) As far as I know all ballots are hand-counted, but it may be possible that they can be machine-counted.

At first votes are counted for each party depending on the printed party on the ballots. Later also checked names are counted since the checkings may override the order of the list printed on the ballot.

In the case where no ballots for a party is available it is possible to take a blank and write down the name of the party you vote on.

Some areas doesn't have the regional voting since the municipality is the same as the region.

When the election is over it is usually the party or combination of parties that has won the election that decides on the prime minister. Normally this person is selected from the largest party in the combination, but it's not necessary.

There are some limitations in the election system. One is that a single party must acquire at least 4% of the votes to get in. (or at least 11% in a single election-area of where there are 29 in Sweden for the governmental election. The 11% may be incorrect, I haven't checked it.)

I have left out some parts or missed somewhere, but at least it may give you an idea of the procedure. There are no such thing as electors or so in the Swedish system, which gives the result that the relation of places held in the "riksdagen", is close to the actual relations in the counted votes. There are of course many more parties than in the US which means that there is also a little more inter-party fiddling around and built-in conflicts. Currently there are seven parties in the "riksdagen".

Art. 6. Every citizen shall be protected in his relations with the public institutions against any physical violation also in cases other than cases under Articles 4 and 5. He shall likewise be protected against body searches, house searches and other such invasions of privacy, against examination of mail or other confidential correspondence, and against eavesdropping and the recording of telephone conversations or other confidential communications.

Art. 6. Every citizen shall be protected in his relations with the public institutions against any physical violation also in cases other than cases under Articles 4 and 5. He shall likewise be protected against body searches, house searches and other such invasions of privacy, against examination of mail or other confidential correspondence, and against eavesdropping and the recording of telephone conversations or other confidential communications.

http://riksdagen.se/

Is that the raid was forced by swedish minister of justice Thomas Bodström after pressure directly from the American government. Thomas Bodström is a member of the currently ruling socialdemocratic party which is also known for having extradited people to Egypt after pressure from the Americans without due process of law. However the one responsible for approving that was a cunt called Anna Lindh who later got stabbed to death in a shoppingmall. More info can be found at http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended__ __7639.aspx

So people can discuss with some more information, the actual law is "Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk" available (in Swedish, sorry 'bout that, I'll try to translate the relevant portion as a reply to this) here. The relevant paragraph is chapter 1, 26 k .

I don't see protecting the source of a trade secret in the same light as, say, protecting a whistle blower who tips off a journalist to illegal or morally corrupt behavior.

I agree that those situations are different. However, they could be intertwined to the point that someone may technically have to violate an NDA in order to disclose morally corrupt behaviour. While a court could declare the NDA non-binding under certain circumstances, such an outcome cannot be reliably predicted by the whistle blower or the journalist before the information is handed over.

If you obtained trade secrets under an NDA, you do NOT have the right to tell those to a journalist at all.

Of course not. The issue is, does the journalist have to assist the plaintiff in identifying the leak?

Either it was "stolen" by someone, or someone breached their contract. In that case, the journalist may have broken the law by inducing the leak.

Journalists are supposed to be third parties disseminating information to the public. When you talk to a journalist, you do so voluntarily and at your own risk. The journalist cannot know what information is covered by an NDA and what is not. Should he be afraid even to ask questions? Does the law effectively make him bound by the contract as well?

It seems reasonable to investigate, and part of that investigation would be asking the journalist where he got the information.

The possibility of a contract being broken, or a crime being committed, does not necessarily allow every potential means of investigation. Can you obtain a search warrant or a phone wiretap in order to resolve a case of petty theft or a business dispute? Forcing a journalist to reveal his source sounds like pretty much the same thing.

For an alternate legal take on the issue of anonymity and the press, see the Swedish Freedom of the Press Act, in particular Chapter 3 (On the right to anonymity), Article 3. In Sweden, I believe Apple (a private enterprise) could have asked the journalist for his source without risking anything, but the journalist might face a fine or up to one year in prison if he complied and answered.

I don't see protecting the source of a trade secret in the same light as, say, protecting a whistle blower who tips off a journalist to illegal or morally corrupt behavior.

I agree that those situations are different. However, they could be intertwined to the point that someone may technically have to violate an NDA in order to disclose morally corrupt behaviour. While a court could declare the NDA non-binding under certain circumstances, such an outcome cannot be reliably predicted by the whistle blower or the journalist before the information is handed over.

If you obtained trade secrets under an NDA, you do NOT have the right to tell those to a journalist at all.

Of course not. The issue is, does the journalist have to assist the plaintiff in identifying the leak?

Either it was "stolen" by someone, or someone breached their contract. In that case, the journalist may have broken the law by inducing the leak.

Journalists are supposed to be third parties disseminating information to the public. When you talk to a journalist, you do so voluntarily and at your own risk. The journalist cannot know what information is covered by an NDA and what is not. Should he be afraid even to ask questions? Does the law effectively make him bound by the contract as well?

It seems reasonable to investigate, and part of that investigation would be asking the journalist where he got the information.

The possibility of a contract being broken, or a crime being committed, does not necessarily allow every potential means of investigation. Can you obtain a search warrant or a phone wiretap in order to resolve a case of petty theft or a business dispute? Forcing a journalist to reveal his source sounds like pretty much the same thing.

For an alternate legal take on the issue of anonymity and the press, see the Swedish Freedom of the Press Act, in particular Chapter 3 (On the right to anonymity), Article 3. In Sweden, I believe Apple (a private enterprise) could have asked the journalist for his source without risking anything, but the journalist might face a fine or up to one year in prison if he complied and answered.

As for the company breaking into your desk, if they had a valid reason to suspect you had something in there you were not allowed to have(a gun, an illegal substance, whatever) you bet they'll break it down.

"Allowed to have", in the context of the discussion here that can only mean something that is not illegal per se, as there are laws pertaining to what you can and cannot do then, but something that's not allowed on company premises but legal to have non the less. As I said, where I'm from they can break into it all they like, but they'd be commiting a fellony in the process.

As for the folder marked private on the company network, it is *their* network. I'd love to see the law that prohibits the company, and more specifically those individuals within the company that have access rights to that section of the network, from looking what's in it.

Sure you want the second chapter (andra avdelningen) 9:th paragraph "Intrång i förvar" (breaking into storage). If it's email straight off then it's probably the 8:th that's more applicable "Brytande av brevhemlighet" (breaking the secrecy of letters and messages).

Look, they're not allowed to record your converstations in the office (see paragraph 9a) why should they be allowed to rifle through your desk? And when it comes to the recording I'm sure the US legislation is not that different from ours. If you're OK with them going through your wallet then why not subject to a strip search right away?

Look, if you want to be an indentured servant, there's nothing I can do to persuade you otherwise. To claim that that's just fine and dandy is a bit much. If the government isn't allowed to do something to its citizens (and in my country the government/courts can never claim that someone waived their rights as there is no way to do that), why should corporations?

>Do you have a source for the claim that the
>directive only deals with copyright related
>issues?

This is mostly from the text of the proposed copyright law changes in Sweden. It is a VERY large documnet (the pdf is split into two 250 page documents). Below is a link to a text version. I can post the link to the pdf tomorrow if needed. It is in Swedish of course. Also note that I mostly read the initial proposal from last year, there are some changes in this one. The relevant chaptr would be 11.3 I think, or perhaps all of 11.

http://rixlex.riksdagen.se/htbin/thw/?$%7BBASE%7D= PROPARKIV0405&$%7BTHWIDS%7D=8.49%5D11145200291088& $%7BHTML%7D=PROP_DOK&$%7BTRIPSHOW%7D=format=THW&$% 7BTHWURLSAVE%7D=49%5D11145200291088

I recall from the original proposition were this was discussed and detailed. The reasoning was that the whole directive is about copyright only. Circumvention can only be in regard to copyright related "rights" for the copyright holder. They specifically mentioned region coding as not applying since it had nothing to do with copyright.

Then they raised the question about protection mechanisms that protected both copyright related rights and non copyright related ones. To give such combined protection also protection for circumvention would be to give to much power to the copyright holder. They thus had the option to either make a protection only for copyright related issues and get protection versus circumvention, or to add more and lose the circumvention protection. As I said, I have not read if there is any changes to this in the current proposal. I would say it would be minor changes only.

The EU directive seems to be attached to this text version but from a quick look looks like a mix of swedish and english.Its name is if I am not mistake "2001/29/EG" It is not THAT easy to actually interpret the directive correctly though, hence why I have mostly relied on reading the swedish proposal for its implementation were they argue on how to interpret and apply the directive. After all, it is the actual law of my country that is relevant to me.

If "share a copy" == "loan them your CD" then you shouldn't be penalized for that and nothing is wrong with it.

Not true...there are many countries in the world, and I know that in least one (Sweden) where it is perfectly legal to copy music and give to your "family and close friends" [*]. On the other hand I agree that there doesn't seem to be any convincing argument as to why you should remove your identification details from the file...but it's hardly illegal (in my country...yet).

[*] For those who know Swedish, the original term is "närmaste familje- och vänskapskretsen" and the information is based on the current copyright laws - SFS 1960:729, "Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk", Chapter 2, paragraph 12 and also the work that led up to the current law ("förarbeten") and subsequent verdicts from the supreme court.

On an unrelated note, the Furby toy was called Furbee in Sweden because the Furby family wasn't too happy about their name being used in that context. Which makes me wonder what'd happen if a Swedish Furby wanted to move to the U.S. :-)

In a situation where free speech exists, however under threat, people need to stand behind their speech /.../

Which they would still be perfectly free to do. But anonymity should be an option. It cannot be that with an infrastructure that only allows distribution of signed documents, and getting such a signing key requires you to prove your identity. (Besides the fact that far from everyone has a credit card. I know several people who for various reasons don't have one, so only having that method of verification obviously wouldn't work. It would be reasonable as one option among others, though.)

I am not against letting each end user decide on their own whether they would want to see unsigned hits to their searches, and when opting to see them at the same time being warned about the legal consequences of downloading files they do not have the rights to download. But different countries have different laws, and a person may very well have perfectly legitimate reasons to want to distribute something without revealing his identity. That should be respected in a technological system, just as it is respected in copyright law (at least in Sweden, this seems to be regulated in SFS 1960:729 chapter 4, which says [among other things not really relevant to this discussion] that copyright does not require that the author is known by name or even pseudonym).

As for Rosa Parks, I have no idea who that is so I cannot comment.

The UN is non-democratic insofar as your country's delegate was not DIRECTLY elected by you, but how many americans voted for Donald Rumsfeld or Colin Powell? (hint - none, they were appointed). UN delegations are similarly appointed by the governments they represent.

Ah, good example, but you are missing a critical point. The Secretaries of State, Defense, whatever, in the US are members of the Executive branch and are subordinates of the President. They are bound by the same series of checks and balances that bind other members of the executive branch.

Similarly, In Parliamentary systems of government, the Prime Minister can just as quickly be recalled with a vote of no confidence and their policies can be overturned.

On the otherhand, the UN seeks to be an autonomous executive and legislative body, whose members could be checked iff the states have these checks in place. In general, I would contend that this simply isn't the case. Further, the idea that you should personally give any weight to a capricious body that sees fit to, with a straight face, elect Libya to the head of the human rights commision is laughable. As long as we're on a roll, why not make North Korea head of the UN/ITU.

In short, your argument is about as valid as saying that because Sweden has a parliament, then they have no right to oppose the EU.

Additionally, who the hell said the UN should have the right to regulate the Internet other than the UN? If they decide they want to have a conference on what I can have for breakfast, they can kiss my ass.

bluGill asks:

Are you saying that I can't split my votes? I have to vote for one party? I know that in the last ellection I voted for canidates from at least three different parties.

In some parlementary governments (I know the Israeli Knesset) that's what you are voting for, which party to represent you in parlement. It appears that the Swedish Riksdag is a little more complicated, and you have some of the flexibility you are asking for, but essentially most people are just picking the party to represent their constituency.

This may be a little inaccurate since I'm Norwegian, but here we go:

Hard to keep up with electronic communication

Today you may experience some unreliable websites. The new law on electronic communication starts today. It says that the sites must inform the purpose of each cookie. The users must also have an option to avoid them.

As of today, swedish websites may not use socalled cookies without informing the user of the purpose and contents stored in them. The user must also have a choice to avoid the cookies.

This is a consequence of the new law on electronic communication, SFS 2003:389, which starts today.

It is not enough to tell the browser to accept all cookies. The website you visit must inform what kind of information is stored, and what the purpose of it is - in addition of giving the user an option to avoid them.

Hard for the sites

Swedish websites have two options.

- One alternative is to stop using cookies. The website functionality may suffer from this, says Jonas Eriksson from Webkonsulterna in Östersund.

Jonas Eriksson doesn't even want to consider the other option.

That makes the majority of all swedish websites who use script languages such as asp and php to become unreliable, unless they rebuild the web sites so the users can use them without cookies when they enter.

But there's more.

- If you thought banners and pop-up ads were bad, considerthe fact that all ad networks now must launch a javascript asking the user wether or not s/he will store a cookie after viewing this ad, he says.

PTS follows up

In the website of Postal and Telecommuncations dept, the PTS, you can read the following:

"Cookies are used by most websites today. The new law on electronic communication, starting July 25th 2003, states that all websites using cookies must inform the user and give an option to work around them."

Hard to tell

According to Charlotte Ingvar-Nilsson, the executive chief of PTS, the PTS will check how the market acts on the new law.

- If the websites don't comply, then we must start informing them on the changes, she says.

What if they don't follow up?

- If we suspect that someone don't follow up, then the website gets one month to comply with the law.

The PTS also have the rights to terminate the service of those who do not follow the new law, unless it is of less importance.

- It remains to see if it will be required, says Charlotte Ingvar-Nilsson.

I wouldn't mind if it wasn't so bloody long..
The link (IDG.se) contains false information.

My conclusions come from the actual law..

This text is enormously long (and boring), so translating it isn't really an option for me. Sorry..

Note that a court of law can still order the journalist to reveal his source. With regards to the fake stories, depending on the story, it could be fraud or libel. And if a newspaper or TV show becomes known for fake stories, I hope that the consumers will stop trusting it as a news source.

References (Swedish laws in Swedish)
libel (förtal):
Tryckfrihe tsförordning (1949:105)
Brottsbalk (1962:700)
Yttrandefr ihetsgrundlag (1991:1469)

Protection of sources:
Tryckfrihetsförordning (1949:105) Ch.3 3

Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?

Note that a court of law can still order the journalist to reveal his source. With regards to the fake stories, depending on the story, it could be fraud or libel. And if a newspaper or TV show becomes known for fake stories, I hope that the consumers will stop trusting it as a news source.

References (Swedish laws in Swedish)
libel (förtal):
Tryckfrihe tsförordning (1949:105)
Brottsbalk (1962:700)
Yttrandefr ihetsgrundlag (1991:1469)

Protection of sources:
Tryckfrihetsförordning (1949:105) Ch.3 3

Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?

Note that a court of law can still order the journalist to reveal his source. With regards to the fake stories, depending on the story, it could be fraud or libel. And if a newspaper or TV show becomes known for fake stories, I hope that the consumers will stop trusting it as a news source.

References (Swedish laws in Swedish)
libel (förtal):
Tryckfrihe tsförordning (1949:105)
Brottsbalk (1962:700)
Yttrandefr ihetsgrundlag (1991:1469)

Protection of sources:
Tryckfrihetsförordning (1949:105) Ch.3 3

Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?

Note that a court of law can still order the journalist to reveal his source. With regards to the fake stories, depending on the story, it could be fraud or libel. And if a newspaper or TV show becomes known for fake stories, I hope that the consumers will stop trusting it as a news source.

References (Swedish laws in Swedish)
libel (förtal):
Tryckfrihe tsförordning (1949:105)
Brottsbalk (1962:700)
Yttrandefr ihetsgrundlag (1991:1469)

Protection of sources:
Tryckfrihetsförordning (1949:105) Ch.3 3

Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?