# [OT] Strange verdict in Swedish court



## Frostmarrow (Mar 7, 2002)

The largest paper on the web in Sweden, Aftonbladet, has been found guilty of "ethnic group bashing" (have no idea what it's called in English) on the web. 

The paper has ongoing debates on their servers. People discuss everything on those boards. Usually the subject is the good old war of the sexes. Sometimes, though, people post stupid stuff on those boards. At one time a poster posted nazi-propaganda which the editor failed to spot and it got published on the web. The post was reported and swiftly removed by the editor. The Stockholm court ("tingsrätten", the first instance) found the publisher guilty of the crime mentioned above. 

The verdict was that the publisher (which referrs to a person, not the paper) is responsible for whatever gets published on the web, as if she had written it herself.

Sort of like Morrus being responsible for what I post here.

Aftonbladet shut their servers down immidiately, others are expected to follow suit. The web debate in Sweden is dead.

Aftonbladet


----------



## EOL (Mar 7, 2002)

That might not mean the end of web debate, but it certainly means the end of interesting, uncensored, unmoderated web debate.  OUCH!!

I for one completely disagree with that ruling and hope this sort of ruling/precedent doesn't spread to other countries.


----------



## Berandor (Mar 7, 2002)

I like that.

I don't know for how long the post in question stood on the boards, and how you go about posting there.

But given that a tolerable amount of time has passed, I really like the verdict.

I remember when someone posted a link here to a site with a rassitic role.playing game, where you had to kill the [CENSORED] to insure the dominance of the white warriors.

When mailing the hosting company to tell them about it, they declined responsibility.

Perhaps that will change now.

Berandor


----------



## Berandor (Mar 7, 2002)

Addendum: The end of uncensored, free web debate?

Look at these boards! Try posting such  here, and see how long it takes one of the mods to delete it!

Still, I don't feel controlled or anything here.

Berandor


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 7, 2002)

> Look at these boards! Try posting such [stuff] here, and see how long it takes one of the mods to delete it!




Well, I get the impression that the publisher of this website deleted the offending posts as well, but he was held accountable nonetheless.  Moderators here would have to look at every post before it was actually added to a thread and delete inappropriate ones in order to comply with such a ruling.

Speaking of moderators, I expect a mod to come along any time now and close this potential firestorm of a topic.  This is getting really close to politics....


----------



## kyuss (Mar 7, 2002)

Well, thats what ya get for living in a socialist state.  This would never happen in the USA, but i'm afraid something ridiculous like this could very well happen in my beloved Canada.


----------



## Zerovoid (Mar 7, 2002)

I think a better policy is that each individual is responsible for all the information that they create and post.  Holding someone responsible for what is done by computers that they own, when those actions are initiated by another person, is a stupid policy.  Most of the web is automated, there is no way it can even exist if someone must read every word of every document before posting it on their servers.

I guess the Swedes don't have total freedom of speech like we do in the US, and I can see some merit in restricting things like hate speech, but to enforce something like this is totally unworkable.  The problem is, nobody makes a conscious decision to publish the hate speech on the web, it is "published" without any human intervention, so how can they blame this guy for publishing it?


----------



## Frostmarrow (Mar 7, 2002)

kyuss said:
			
		

> *Well, thats what ya get for living in a socialist state.  This would never happen in the USA, but i'm afraid something ridiculous like this could very well happen in my beloved Canada. *




Socialist state? Sweden is a free democratic country*, thank you very much. You should invest some ranks in Knowledge (Geography) 

The problem is that Aftonbladet, being a major newspaper (say two million readers), receives far more post to it's messageboards than this board for example. That means that it's impossible to scrutinize every single post received. Since Aftonbladet realises this they closed the servers down.

Bear in mind that the verdict can be appealed twice in Sweden and then some in the EU. I'm sure they will change it. Still, I thought it might interest a bunch of webdebators such as your-selves.

*) CIA calls Sweden a constitutional monarchy


----------



## Thengil (Mar 7, 2002)

We DO have freedom of speech in Sweden, with one exception: It is not legal to publicly express racist views. What happened in this particular case was that due to technical difficulties the moderators could not remove the offending posts which were up on the site for some time.

It all boils down to who is legally responsible for the racist posts. As the editor of a magazine is responsible for views expressed in his magazine, the moderators of a bbs are responsible for posts on their message board. What I don't agree with in this particular case is that the moderators got busted for something that clearly wasn't their fault. It's the letter of the law rather than the spirit, so to speak.

We may live in a socialist state, but we can still say (almost) what we want


----------



## angramainyu (Mar 7, 2002)

Please don't turn this into a political debate.  It would be painfully ironic to have to close this thread... I think I will move it to Meta forum, though.


----------



## Berandor (Mar 7, 2002)

Well, I just put two quotes from this thread in here:



> from the original post:
> _At one time a poster posted nazi-propaganda which the editor failed to spot and it got published on the web._




So it sounded to me a bit as if there WAS a staff that views all posts beforehand.



> from my first post:
> _I don't know for how long the post in question stood on the boards, and how you go about posting there.
> 
> But given that a tolerable amount of time has passed, ..._



You see? If the post just sat on the boards for ~ 24 h, I don't know if the verdict would be so good; but if it stood there for a week, than there's a mistake in the editing staff or it's technical systems.

Afterthought:
It seems they had indeed technical problems, and the post stayed up for long.

[EDITED] into: Please read up on geographical details, and try to look more critical towards your countries behaviour regarding certain laws.

Berandor


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 7, 2002)

> Quote Redacted




_CARNIVORE stirs from its sleep and cocks its head to one side, as if it were listening to something barely audible.  The beast then sniffs the air for a moment, testing it for traces of a familiar odor.

Suddenly the vaguely lupine shape leaps to its four clawed feet and begins running.  It runs faster and faster until it is just a blur of electrons.

It's got a target, and the hunt is on...._


----------



## Berandor (Mar 7, 2002)

Damn, Wolfspider, I immediately edited the post! 

Too late for it to disappear, it seems... 

Berandor
some claims just publish themselves...


----------



## Frostmarrow (Mar 7, 2002)

Berandor said:
			
		

> *Damn, Wolfspider, I immediately edited the post!
> 
> Too late for it to disappear, it seems...
> 
> ...




That's gonna be picked up by ECHELON-system, lol. Good call to remove it Berandor. I don't want a politics discussion either. I just relayed a piece of information which I found curiously interesting.

Now, let's get back to the regular discussion. Would a paladin strike down an instigator of hate?


----------



## Henry (Mar 7, 2002)

I don't know if this crosses the "no politics" rule, but since this has to do with the value of civil debate, rather than how good or bad the president is doing, I'll speak my mind and risk it.

There is a strong danger of limiting free speech in a free society. _NOTE: My comments apply to the United States of America, a country for which I am familiar with its constitution and basic premises upon which it was founded. This may or may not apply to your country of origin._

For good or ill, when you limit someone's freedom to represent their ideas in a coherent form in public, you limit your own ability to speak your mind as well. This is because you have set a precedent for removing someone's right to say whatever they wish in a public venue.

The issue is quite different when the medium does not belong to you. If you follow a terms of service agreement, whether written or merely verbal, you agree to abide by the restrictions put in place upon you by a PRIVATE individual. Very few people would argue a private individual's (and by extension, a corporation's) right to censor the material that they wish to be made public. If you don't own the medium of publicity, then you submit to someone else's terms of use.

The issue gets very dicey when a GOVERNMENT enacts laws that limit public freedom of expression in any form. As much as we accept as a society certain standards (for instance, laws against public nudity in downtown Manhattan, NY) of conduct that are codified into law for public behavior, the MINUTE you enact a law that prohibits someone from making their thoughts known in a public forum, you take a course of action that limits free speech, and thereby starts you down a path of further encroachments on a concept that is founded in the very framework of government of the sovereign government.

When someone is arrested for public speaking, it is often not for public speaking - it is for loitering on private property, or for physical action in combination with their speech expression, etc. 

The danger of HATE CRIME LAWS (yes, I know the U.S. has them, and I disagree with them for the reason above) is that, as hateful, derogatory, and against the public ethical code is, it is far more dangerous as a society to curtail someone's expression of ideals in a public forum (such as the internet) because any encroachment of freedom, necessary or not, leads to further encroachment on these freedoms at a future date. It is far easier in our society to enact legislation than repeal it, so the dangers of "rules creep" is all too common. _It is far more productive to combat these ideals with truth and refuting evidence, than to shut them down through the enactment of legislation that makes the very act of speaking your mind a crime._

Many countries that have enacted Hate Crime laws already can see the negative fruits of this legislation in situations such as this. Through no fault of their own, this Swedish newspaper is facing what amounts to criminal charges for allowing someone to speak their mind on their services. No matter what a free citizen feels about someone's ideals, I imagine they would value their right to speak their own minds enough to defend another's right to say what they believe without facing criminal charges. The simple act of disagreement is one of the most essential freedoms upon which we on this board disseminate new game rules, new ideas, and contrary opinions.

I'll close by saying that if it's legal, then it's legal - but it doesn't make it not dangerous to the free spread of dissenting opinions.


----------



## Col_Pladoh (Mar 7, 2002)

Berandor said:
			
		

> *I like that.
> 
> I remember when someone posted a link here to a site with a rassitic role.playing game, where you had to kill the [CENSORED] to insure the dominance of the white warriors.
> 
> ...




Not unless the First Amendment goes out the window. All speech is protected, the PC crap and the still more odious racist stuff.

Gary


----------



## Frostmarrow (Mar 7, 2002)

Outlawing hate propaganda is not the same thing as limiting a citizen's freedom of speach. Chances are the laws already cover such crimes from another angle. It is illegal to threaten people even in USA. It is illegal to instigate a crime even in USA. The countries that have outlawed hate propaganda is merely highlighting a crime which is illegal anyway. In Sweden for example I can still have opinions about immigration, foreigners or what have you. What I can't do is propagate that certain people should be beaten or murdered. The reason for this is that violence begets violence. Hate begets hate. The swastika for example is considered to be a symbol for instigating crime. The symbol reads "Let's reinstate Auswitch". By wearing it I am an offender of laws aimed to protect people. You can still use the symbol for use in research, art or journalism. 

Western countries, or any countries for that matter, see things in pretty much the same way. The laws may differ of course, but that is mainly due to differences in legal system. Sweden for example does not use jurys like USA does. This makes the laws a bit different and the way to approach criminals with charges varies from country to country. However, the aim is always to protect the innocent yet allow the greatest amount of individual freedom.

I'm not worried that my freedom of speech is threatened. In this particular case with Aftonbladet I think the court made a wrong decision. You can't stop people from debating and if I can't do it at home I'll do it on American soil.  As I stated earlier I think the verdict will be changed in the Supreme Court. It might interest you to know that the server this board is operated on is situated right here in my hometown Katrineholm, Sweden. (At least last time I checked). That means that Morrus indeed is responsible for any hate propaganda on these boards and is subject to Swedish legislation.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Mar 7, 2002)

Nobody is reading this thread anymore. Still, here is an update on the current situation:

By reviewing some (but not all) of the submissions to the forums in Aftonbladet the e-paper has attempted to increase the editorial control of the boards. Therefore the court found the editor guilty. If Aftonbladet hadn't reviewed any of the submissions they would probably been cleared of all charges. Instead the original poster had been accountable for the offence. I just read an interview with the defense attorney. 

So, my guess is that Morrus still can sleep at night. Provided he doesn't browse the posts before it goes on the web. I know he has that power if he wants it. -Don't use it Morrus. There is a £3 500 fine for doing so.


----------



## Henry (Mar 7, 2002)

Frostmarrow, the problem with enacting laws that "prohibit racist speech" are so broadly defined that anything from opinions to incitement to riot are covered. The fact that a symbol with a threatening slogan is considered illegal is quite different from a country like, say, Germany, where the Nazi party and all symbols are outlawed. You cannot buy a swastika in Germany on a flag, banner, or download its image legally from the internet, can you not? (Someone correct me if I'm incorrect on this.)

In Sweden, if elves were a real ethnic group, and I said that all elves are tall, dumb, and cut deals with Satan for long life, would that be considered racist speech? Even if I were saying that all elves should be deported back to the Unseelie Court where they belonged, would that be racist speech? COULD it be prosecuted as racist speech?

If so, then you run the danger of disallowing even more innocent forms of speech - it's not too far to outlaw all public displays of negativism toward a racial group. I could say, "I hate elves - they've never caused me anything but trouble." And if that is illegal, it only goes downhill from there.

Under no circumstances would I agree that such thoughts were right - but I would say it is wrong and encroaches on a constitutionally given right to free speech to jail or fine such people for making this statment. In the U.S. we are derided for allowing such groups as the Ku Klux Klan to assemble - but the alternative for not allowing them to assemble is far worse in the long run. You may quell hateful speech, but (1) If you drive it completely underground, you create no means for opposing such speech in a debatable form, (2) you set the precedent for limiting other more innocuous forms of speech, and (3) you eventually create an atmosphere where it is difficult to express yourself without form of legal persecution. Civil persecution is different from Legal persecution, and should be treated as such.

Each generation feels that it gives up no more freedom than it is comfortable with. The big problem here is that giving up ANY freedoms should be very carefully considered, because any freedom you give up for safety you will most likely NEVER get back, for good or ill. To make matters more difficult, every generation that is raised under lack of certain freedoms doesn't find it odd to miss such freedoms, and are more willing to give up other freedoms for increased safety.

I'm not syaing by any means that any country is a totalitarian dictatorship for censoring their freedoms of speech - what I am saying is that it is a danger to free speech that needs to be carefully monitored to avoid future double-edged swords. 

Even now, legislation is in the public conscious that could mean a limitation on the application of free speech in specific instances (but to mention it by name will mean politicizing this thread which I don't want to do). So it needs to be on a public's mind constantly - how far does free speech extend, and how far does safety extend, before the two are mutually exclusive of one another?


----------



## Berandor (Mar 7, 2002)

To Germany: You can depict or use a swastika, but only in a historical work, like a documentary, a movie that is set in that time, or with this subculture as protagonists now, or the like.

A movie like "American History X" is perfectly legal here.

As to the freedom of speech:
I think the dilemma is that it is impossible to have total freedom for all, because there comes the point where you hinder another one's freedom by your own.
There is also the point that words, especially well-crafted words, can incite crimes and spoil other people.
Hitler didn't come to power because everybody wnated to kill Jews, or because he had such great plans, or a good agenda.
He was an incredibly charismatic speaker.
When he held speeches over the radio, people would flock to the transistor. He was able to instill a variety of emotions in short time just by making a good speech.

The danger of words is sometimes, I believe, underestimated in some countries. That's why Germany, at least, has outlawed certain statements to be made *publicly.*
If you continue talking about Jewish conspiracies, some people will start to belive it, and perhaps go and hurt, or kill someone.
Of course, even in Germany only the most heinous crimes cannot be talked about _publicly_.

Additionally, racist remarks are a sore point in Germany, and we have to look out very much at what exactly people say or do, or we would get into bad press faster than you would think.

On the other hand, if a German pupil would say he hated his teacher and wishes her dead, he wouldn't be treated as harsh as in the US, because school killings are a sore point for your country.

I don't think our countries differ from each other that much, I think many Americans hold to their absolute freedom of speech where it doesn't really exist anymore. You may still be a bit more lenient in most areas, but in some you are even stricter than other countries... it just isn't openly admitted because the right to free speech is one of the most important American beliefs.

Berandor


----------



## Frostmarrow (Mar 7, 2002)

Henry said:
			
		

> *In Sweden, if elves were a real ethnic group, and I said that all elves are tall, dumb, and cut deals with Satan for long life, would that be considered racist speech? Even if I were saying that all elves should be deported back to the Unseelie Court where they belonged, would that be racist speech? COULD it be prosecuted as racist speech? *




I don't think you could be prosecuted for saying elves are tall, dumb and ought to return to the unseelie court. It doesn't become racist until you suggest elven hides should be used to make drums. I don't know exactly where the line is drawn. Nobody does, it hasn't been tried often enough yet. Please bear in mind that the people that pass verdict are educated people with nothing but the best interest of all Sweden's citizens in mind.

I see your point, however, and I realise that we're on the razor's edge, here. I think that you are right about each generation not minding losing a little freedom and that many small streams adds up to a big river. Perhaps it's the backlash one should worry about? The day people think "Nonsense, I say what I like no matter what for the laws are silly!" I think that will happen long before Sweden risks becoming a police state.



> _Originally posted by Berandor_
> *Additionally, racist remarks are a sore point in Germany, and we have to look out very much at what exactly people say or do, or we would get into bad press faster than you would think. *




I know what you mean. Sort of, we have the same thing. It comes from Sweden's guilty conscience for staying out of the war yet helping the nazis. We are celebrating 200 years of continuous peace in 2005 but somehow WWII continues to haunt us. Not exactly our finest hour.


----------



## Henry (Mar 7, 2002)

Berandor said:


> I don't think our countries differ from each other that much, I think many Americans hold to their absolute freedom of speech where it doesn't really exist anymore. You may still be a bit more lenient in most areas, but in some you are even stricter than other countries... it just isn't openly admitted because the right to free speech is one of the most important American beliefs.




True, and I agree wholeheartedly. I go further, however, in asserting that it is a truly dangerous state of affairs for the sake of idealogical freedom, which is why I oppose it.

The only difficulty with hate crime legislation is that it is frequently used in the U.S. (and I would guess elsewhere) for true travesties of justice. Take into account Pennsylvania State University's 1993 Student Eden Jacobowitz, a jewish student who told late-night revelers to _"Shut up, you water buffalo, I'm studying."_ He was charged with racist slur speech under the U-Penn guidelines for student conduct, because according to college Judicial Officer Robin Read, a Water Buffalo was a "dark, primitive animial that lived in Africa" - which goes to show the brilliant zoological education of the U-Penn Judicial Office.

Also take into account the hate speech practices of the Washington D.C. mayor's office, when an Aide resigned because of flack generated by his use of the word "niggardly" in a private meeting. His resignation was gladly received, more to promote the killing of the "issue" more than anything else.

Imagine if either of these were covered by actual legal statutes. Even if the allegations are as silly as dental plaster on wheat bread, if someone actually served jail time or was served a fine for these "criminal allegations", I would be beside myself. all one had to do in that instance was to lie and disinform, without so much as a single scrap of evidence, and someone was forced to resign from a politcal office.

Now, if in either of these cases a racial slur HAD been used, would it have been "right" to prosecute either legally or civically? It's a tricky line to walk when separating freedom of opinion from racial threat, if all you have is the threat.

In regard to the sensitivity of our society to student/teacher threats, the U.S. is far too sensitive to these issues in my opinion as well. As many members of this board could tell you (and they have when this topic arose once before), they or someone they knew as a student since the Columbine Colorado Massacre has been harassed unnecessarily by officials and law enforcement authorities. I understand the need for caution, but becoming an in-practice totalitarian society is not the solution.

In a recent rant on www.peldor.com, The Adventurers writer Thomas miller wrote (http://www.peldor.com/news/2002_03_07.html) that

_"Realistically, you can have "freedom from" or you can have "freedom to." You can have freedom to walk downtown at midnight, but you might get mugged. You can have freedom from getting mugged, but the cost might be curfews, or armed police in the streets, or severe penalties for people who have mugged previously. You can't have both freedoms at once, though, because they cannot co-exist."_

He is correct in the crux of his argument. Drawing the line between "free" and "not free" is a civic responsibility that should never be taken lightly by any citizen regardless of government. Where you draw the line is determined by the society of your nation (group of people bound by a common culture, geography, and experience).

I will keep watching this thread, but I will likely cease replaying because like Forrest Gump, "That's all I've got to say about that."  I guess I can't put the thought mroe clearly than this. Whether a person is for or against hate crime or anti-racial legislation, the burden is still upon them to be sure that any freedom of public expression they give up for a good cause is worth giving up.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Mar 8, 2002)

Henry said:
			
		

> *"That's all I've got to say about that."  *




You said it well, thank you.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 8, 2002)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> * It might interest you to know that the server this board is operated on is situated right here in my hometown Katrineholm, Sweden. (At least last time I checked). That means that Morrus indeed is responsible for any hate propaganda on these boards and is subject to Swedish legislation. *




Ummm... nope.  The server is most certainly not in Sweden.  Or I'm going completely crazy...

The day I become responsible for user's posts in any way, shape or form is the day I close these boards.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 8, 2002)

Hmm. I remember a similar verdict was made in regard to internet rights here in Germany.
The court decided that you were responsible for anything that might be found by clicking on a link you provide on your own site, at least if you not explicately say that nothing that can be found there is under your responsibility. 
I don`t know how this come up. Might have to do with racism or children porn? (The most probable things, I believe. There is not much I can think of that would be illegal to present online, and that would cause someone to "call the police"...)


----------



## Berandor (Mar 8, 2002)

Henry: Why, we seem to be of the same mind! 

Mustrum: The reason was indeed links to children's pornography or hate sites. However, a simple
"Note: I am not responsible for the content of the sites my links point to"
gets you out of trouble.

B


----------

