“JK puts down the preliminary investigation against 16 publisher”
“the attorney general lays down the brottsförundersökningen against 16 responsible publisher in Sweden regarding defamation. The trade association newspaper publishers and an expert on the freedom of the press, is a welcome decision.”
“The high-profile investigation began in december 2018, with the reason of a notice from the TT News agency that vidareförmedlade data from a journal.”
“the Data, which later proved incorrect, was that a skolbussförare would have shown students porn video. The movie turned out instead to be a romantic comedy. Nyhetsnotisen published of a wide range of media, which led to the Press council (PON) in October 2018 fell Aftonbladet, Expressen, Metro, Norran and Svenska Dagbladet, for breach of good journalistic practice.”
“JK decided to initiate an investigation if yttrandefrihetsbrottet slander against the five media that have been made of PON and additional eleven, having regard to the nature and these have been disseminated on a very large number of sites.”
“Since the end of the year, new rules, adapted with the view of nätpubliceringar, and that gives the publishers within two weeks after notification from JK picks away prospective förtalsuppgifter older than one year from the database, discharge.”
“to Varying justification”
“JK’s justification to abandon the criminal prosecution vary. In some cases the information has been removed from the websites of more than six months ago, and thus applies the limitation period, acknowledges the authority. In other cases, the publishers removed the data according to the so-called two-week-rule – and can thus no longer be held responsible.”
“What case of three publishers who voluntarily removed the data is the prosecution of general point of view is not necessary, despite the fact that they are not subject to discharge under the two week rule, according to the authority. On the two sites is the data still there, but has been edited to prevent identification.”
“newspaper publishers (TU) welcomes the CHANCELLOR’s decision to close down the investigation.”
“I think it is a wise assessment according to the new framework, and I have great respect for the fact that it is new legislation which should be examined,” says Jeanette Gustafsdotter, ceo of TU.”
“TU, however, have comments on the two-week rule, which can lead to the publishers voluntarily remove data in the past can be prosecuted for libel, and wants the government in a supplementary follow up and evaluate the effects.”
“– There is a risk that some publishers feel compelled to unpublish something that JK is sending the notification, in order to avoid a förtalsprocess and maybe a conviction, ” says Jeanette Gustafsdotter.”
“Nils Funcke, author, and tryckfrihetsexpert, believe that JK never from the beginning pursued a libel suit in the case.”
“– JK should just go into the distressing case, and it was not justified here. The driver was anonymous, and the publication was not so extensive that JK should go in, ” says Funcke.”
“He is worried that the new regulatory framework may lead to a more cowardly journalism, and JK’s personal perceptions may large games room.”
“– It is an unfortunate rule that is alien in our tryckfrihetstradition. Now, there are concrete examples of the will be removed.”
“the TT has unsuccessfully sought the attorney general.”
“the Chancellor of justice is sole prosecutor when it comes to the press and breaching the freedom of expression, that is to say, unauthorized statements in printed publications, radio and tv, but also to technical recordings, such as dvd, cd, video, and more. JK should also protect the freedom to disclose information and the protection of anonymity for the whistleblowers to the media.”
“the CHANCELLOR should, as a rule, only in exceptional cases arouse the public prosecution according to the press – and yttrandefrihetsförordningen, in essence, it is the plaintiff who must bring the private prosecution. A public prosecution may be instituted when a conviction can be expected, and there is either a clear public interest that the crime be prosecuted or strong reasons with regard to the plaintiff. Since 2014, JK:p åtalsmöjlighet slightly expanded, with regard to the internet’s emergence.”
