Slashdot Mirror
It's Hard To Run a Blog In Sweden
mpawlo writes "Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt is being investigated by a prosecutor because of his blog. In a blog post, Mr. Bildt states that some 13.000 comments are posted (Swedish link) on his blog and that he and his staff try to erase all inappropriate comments. However, they apparently missed a comment proposing genocide of Palestinians. This prompted a Swedish leftist blogger to report the conservative foreign minister's blog and the comment to the authorities. Now a prosecutor is looking into the matter and the foreign minister will likely be held responsible for the comments due to poor Swedish legislation on freedom of speech relative to the Internet."
If people don't get drug into court for bullshit laws, the bullshit laws tend to stay on the books.
It's unfortunate that most of the world seems to work that way, but there you have it.
It's probably better for everyone if that sort of thing actually happens, especially if it happens to high-profile individuals. Even the individuals getting busted, in the long run (it's cold comfort when you're in court, though.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Pay attention everyone; expecially those of you who support hate crime and speech laws. This is what happens when you regulate certain "unacceptable" kinds of speech with the intent of "correcting" unpopular beliefs.
"Thoughtcrime" won't be relegated to fiction for long.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
but trolling one couldn't be easier
I don't get what the problem is? Genocide of the Palestinians would be a valid answer.
Not a very good one mind you, but it would be effective.
I kid. I kid.
All countries go through stuff like this because laws arent fast enough to keep up with technology. Or, the people creating laws don't understand the technology. Happened before and will happen again, in every country around the globe.
Would the owner of an apartment building be liable if someone posted a similar message on a bulletin board along side all of the for sale ads from other tenants?
-Xoltri
I don't know anything about Swedish law (except that Pirate Bay seems to get away with anything they want), but if the blog host is making reasonable good faith efforts to remove inappropriate comments and missed one, it seems morally reprehensible to hold him responsible.
A Møøse once blogged my sister.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
No, it's still the same, but they've introduced these new things called "countries that aren't the US and have different laws". Some other things you may come across in these "non-US countries" include people who speak funny, people who have never heard of Oprah and people with national health coverage...
they need to chill out, hop around a pole like frogs and knock back a bunch of liquor - have a few brawls and then everybody can love each other again.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I thought the same thing. If the law is that broken, a few high profile people need to get nailed with it. Sometimes, the best way to get a law changed, is to enforce it.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
So apparently Sweden has the same problems with blogs and web-boards as Germany. Over here the
blog/board owner can be held responsible for any offensive/illegal content posted by someone on
the discussion board or comments. Even if the owner isn't aware of any such posting. This is called
"disturbance liability". If he is sued and agrees to remove the incriminating content there are some
stiff financial penalties if the poster is continuing.
Some courts think it is technically possible to monitor a web-board with 200k comments per month
like http://heise.de/
you can't legislate intent - you can only legislate action. i know, people try but they are stupid. but even so - this blog post is not going to incite violence - period. there aren't a bunch of swedes waiting to hop on the next boat to the middle east to start shooting palestinians. it's ridiculous to say that there is any real damage done here.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I simply don't monitor comments on my website (some other types of content besides blog posts permit them, or I would have said "blog") and frankly I think that is the way to go. Because if you remove some comments, you can be stuck removing other comments... but then, this is the US. I still reserve the right to remove whatever I like, of course, and if something is illegal or just nasty and I notice it then I remove it. But if I had a policy of policing then I would have to follow that policy.
Sorry to hear it's different in Sweden, I would run my blog out of a less oppressive country (in terms of freedom of speech, that is.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Quote Old Testament scripture with respect to homosexuals... Then he'd be in *real* trouble.
The interesting thing about freedom of speech is that it's not absolute, not even in the most liberal of countries. In the more liberal countries, you're free to say anything you like, as long as your speech doesn't have the effect of prompting action.
Which kind of makes the so called "Freedom of Speech" pointless.
The sad fact of the matter is no matter how much we'd like to believe otherwise, people will be judged by what they say, and even by words of the people with whom they associate. Even though this was probably a smear tactic, the realization of freedom of speech requires that we live in some kind of fantasy world where speech never has an effect on the *actions* of people. In such a world, you could say whatever you want.
Instead, we ought to consider the consequences of speech before we speak. Speech with political consequences shouldn't be restrained, but speech with violent consequences ought not be protected. Drawing the line between the two isn't easy, because political speech often has violent consequences.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I'm glad you do too.
It's not universal. First, we're imprisoning mostly the wrong people for the aforementioned effect to occur, people who don't have any money. If you get busted for drugs, they're likely to take away all your money and claim it came from drugs whether it did or not; so see point 1.
Second, the War On Some Drugs is too profitable for too many influential groups for this to work. Think about all the beneficiaries! The biggest motivation to ban Marijuana originally came from Hearst (with his paper industry) and DuPont (with his plastics industry) but it also benefits the pharmaceutical companies, who get to sell bullshit drugs for things which can be treated with cannabis; the liquor industry, which would probably see a decline in sales; the private incarceration industry including both companies which build prisons and companies which run them; and of course, the justice system, which has dramatically higher volume with marijuana illegal than it would without it. There's also special organizations created just to reduce marijuana production, like CAMP, which would have no reason to exist without the prohibition (although they did cut CAMP's funding this year, or so I hear.)
What I find particularly annoying about this issue, though, is that the American public is being pretty fucking stupid by going along with the bullshit arguments. I don't know about you but I learned in school (partly in college, but just a lame two-year) that prohibition was an abject failure all along, and that it was terminated because it essentially provided endless positive PR for organized crime; they could make people happy and grateful by breaking the law! And, of course, make the usual pile of money in the process. It made gangsters famous instead of infamous and made them rich to boot. But we have precisely the same situation today with the other controlled substances; plus it is honestly true that some import drug sales fund terrorism. (Of course, so did paying OBL's Taliban to combat opium production in afghanistan, but never mind that for just now.) So the government is telling us "don't buy drugs, because they fund terrorism" while at the same time literally creating a market for foreign drugs by outlawing their production (and use of course) here in the states! And on top of that, it harms the US economy by sending that money out into the world instead of having it spent here and remain in local communities, let alone in the country.
I don't understand how so many people in this country can continually vote to keep drugs illegal except to believe that they did not at all learn the lessons of prohibition of alcohol - the only constitutional amendment ever passed that limits freedoms. And, of course, an amendment which was later revoked.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How can you tell the difference between an unacceptable post that was missed by a less-than-perfect process for removing it, from one that was left by an admin who wants to post it, so "missed it" on purpose?
Government ministers have so much power, the public takes so much risk giving it to them, that they have to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing. Because it's often so hard to tell the difference, and the difference often doesn't matter to the results
--
make install -not war
The link to the Wordpress blogg confirms it (albeit in Swedish) "...nås jag nu av informationen om att detta har lett till att en åklagare inlett förundersökning om brott." which translates to "... now I've been reached by the information that a prosecutor has begun a preliminary investigation if there has been a breech of the law".
An english language site of swedish news is thelocal.se also has it at http://www.thelocal.se/7674/20070621/.
And no, politicians do not have immunity while in office here in Sweden (thank god). I belive the King has some limited immunity but that's about it.
Incitement to violence isn't protected speech anywhere
If you are not allowed to advocate the overthrow of your government, your free speech is exactly worthless.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
the only constitutional amendment ever passed that limits freedoms
What? The 13th amendment limited my freedom to hold slaves. No? Not buying that? Neither do I, but it's the same argument people make when they say the GPL is "less free" than BSD.
Man I can not stay on topic today. heh.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Censorship, hate-crime laws and speech restriction laws can be entirely valid, fair and appropriate. When they are, they should exist - no matter who doesn't like it. But when they exist, they should be balanced with common law principles of reasonableness and fairness. The sole purpose of such principles is to prevent useful laws from being abused, which is wont to happen when unreasonable and abusive use of the law is tolerated.
True free speech is actually much rarer in countries that tolerate the abuse of laws, because you can usually be prosecuted for something. Litigation-happy cultures do exist, sad to say, and they suffer horribly for it. America may nominally require freedom of speech, under the first amendment, but what's the reality? One potential case in Sweeden that may never go anywhere versus how many actual convictions for "unlawful" speech in the US this year?
Before we slam Sweden too much for one minor incident and call it "thoughtcrime", I'd point out that it's hard to compare this with, just for example, the crimes the CIA are now admitting to carrying out on those who thought wrong. I'd also point out that the Scandanavian countries - for all their laws on speech - are most unlikely to carry out such abuses. Freedom of speech is entirely right and proper, but it seems very clear that protecting freedom of speech is more complicated than simply saying that it's a nice idea.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
these kinds of posts don't cause violence.
Fuck you! I'll kill you!
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
It's all because of foolish requirements in the fifth and sixth section of the "Lag om ansvar för elektroniska anslagstavlor " , approximately translated, The Electronic bulletin board responsibility act.
Which states that the provider is responsible for the comments if they obviously contains either illegal content (hate speech, child pornography, calls for riots) or
illegally republished copyrighted content (i.e a very blatant copyright violation).
And even if you didn't have the time to check all the comments or if you missed something, you are responsible, since you have been negligent ( sixth section).
However even if he had been covered by the Freedom of the Press part of the Swedish constitution he would have been under investigation anyway, since hate speech is exempt.
He will probably receive a small fine and that's the end of it.
Sweden has hate speech laws in common with some other parts in Europe, but it's not illegal to host .torrent files because that has part a precedence in law, and part it's a legal grey area anyway. Because a .torrent file is not copyrighted so it would be some sort of "contributory infrigement" which they're still under investigation for (note that TPB has still neither been ruled guilty or not).
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I can bet quite a lot.
The blogger has somewhat of a grudge against our current right-wing government and writes about any setback or "scandal" with glee, and tries to manufacture scandal where there isn't one. But it's probably some other moron who posted the comments.
Note that the stage this is in is that a prosecutor is investigating if they're even gonna bother pressing charges. Considering similar cases before, and considering the severity of the comments, absolutely nothing is going to happen, it's just the wet dreams of one blogger. Move along. Nothing to see here.
I've followed the development of this story for a while now.
The blogger is Jinge of http://www.jinge.se/ (Swedish) These comments have been on Carl Blidts blog since early april, for over two months now. During this time it has has been mentioned to him several times. He has been interviewed on both the news and the radio about them, without removing them. It is probably more because of incompetence then malice because he on the news said IIRC that he wanted to remove the comments but there was no point in doing it since they already were in "the cache".
13000 comments is not much for a blog as old as Carl Bildt's. In comparison Jinge's blog has about 30000 comments all manually moderated before being visible on the blog. These particular comments were few and all in the same thread. The comments encouraged prosecution and/or extermination of the Palestinan people.
These laws are seldomly used, but have been used in recent yers agiants hate speech advocating prosecution of and/or violence towards jews and homosexuals, and probably others that I can't remember right now.
Here is a [loose] English translation of the article
Apparently our cleansing efforts of uncomfortable comments on this blog missed a few submissions from, in particular, one person - And via the media I have now been informed that this has caused a prosecutor to start a preliminary examination to see if a crime has been committed.
In total, there are more than 13,000 comments, of varying type, on this blog. And during the last few months we have been trying to remove posts that were particularly inappropriate or insulting.
As soon as we are notified about something we missed, we have removed it. However, it is clear we missed a contribution from a certain person early this year.
Naturally, this is unfortunate. That this was not done on purpose is clear, because we have removed other comments in the past. The comments that we were notified about today were obviously removed immediately.
That is how it is. After that the legal examination have to run its course.
Where this will lead, I do not know. But I think it would be sad if it forced me to shut down this blog. And if I have to do that, it will most likely lead to other blogs being forced to do the same thing.
However, we have not reached that stage yet.
Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
Sweden actually has the oldest legislation there is regarding freedom of speech. The problem is that it is too old.
Two separate acts, with a common ground, regulate freedom of the press and freedom of broadasting media respectively -- it is technology dependent. Anyone publishing (or broadcasting) media must have a license to do so, and whoever has the license is the registered publisher, who alone will face any legal actions if anyone in the staff commits a "crime of freedom of speech" (that is what is it called, totally Orwellian, I know).
An exception to this was when two journalists (Guillou and Brattström) were convicted of spying when they exposed the Information Bureau, an illegal intelligence agency.
Anyway, people publishing without such a license (like bloggers) are not protected by the two separate acts that regulate freedom of speech. Instead, private citizens are subject to a "Personal Data Act", that initially made it an offense to publish virtually anything about anyone without written permission. People have been convicted for describing colleagues breaking a foot in the yard under this law. It was initially a very harsh interpretation of a EU directive.
Reality later had its impact as the Internet grew larger, and especially since Web 2.0 applications began to spread on the net (blogs, newspaper comments and so forth). The "Personal Data Act" was changed accordingly this year, and private citizens publishing stuff that is of an artistic or journalistic nature are in essence covered by one of the two basic acts on freedom of speech (both of which are part of the constitution, which by the way is not as strong as the American constitution), namely the one regulating broadcasting media. People who blog for other reasons than debate or journalism have no such protection.
Mr. Bildt's blogging is thus covered by the constitution. But the comments are not, because yet another law covers such elements, namely the so called BBS Law (or law on electronic billboards). This law states that anyone operating a billboard (or equivalent; a blog is a billboard acccording to this definition) has the same role as a registered publisher in a media company, and therefore has to surveill the platform he is letting up for public use and also take action within reasonable time, should there be reason to do so.
Practically, this means one has to remove illegal messages or comments within a week from being notified of their existence. One can also apply for a license to operate as a media company, to get the fullest protection of the law (which means that only a special prosecutor can prosecute). But then one also have to save every intermediate state of the media in question, that is the state inbetween every comment and change on the blog, like a versioning system -- this is too overwhelming for a private publisher of a blog. In the current case, a common prosecutor is investigating the case -- no one has yet been notified of anything, it is just an investigation.
So, these are the basics of Swedish "freedom of speech". In essence, the law has a 16th century view on such freedoms of expression, only recognizing media companies as valid publishers. The common man has until fairly recently been rather unfree. The press and the media are thought to be "representatives" of the people, which is why the media is usually called "the third state power" in Sweden. Regular folks are not supposed to have freedom of speech. The press and the broadcasting media are an elite group with special privileges, and recently they have begun attacking blogs for infringing on those privileges.
Regarding the current case, there will probably be no action, since Carl Bildt has had his foreign ministry staff go through all comments and remove those that may be unlawful. They have missed one or two such comments after being notified, but the law isn't that rigorous. A reasonable effort has been made, and it is likely no one will be held accountable for anything in this matter.
On the ot
With respect to Europe, there are vast differences in free speech rights from one country to the next, with Germany for example being one of the more restrictive countries, for historical reasons. You can't really talk about 'Europe' as a single entity here, even if there are some common provisions, based on the ECHR, EU treaties and so on.