sou · H0B355 · 2012-08-24 00:00:00 — The main aim has been to make the two fundamental laws as clear and easy to apply as possible. A relatively far-reaching review has been made of the structure and language of the FPA and the FLFE. A number of changes are made to the structure of the FLFE, in part so as to make it possi- ble, in the main, to read the text independently without extensive reference to the FPA. In certain cases provisions have been moved from the fundamental laws to ordinary laws, primarily to the Act with provisions in the areas of the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental on Freedom of Expression (1991:1559). Sec- tion headings have been added. The text has been brought in line with modern legislative language and made gender neutral. To give one example of the changes mentioned, the current de- tailed regulation of judicial procedures has been simplified by transferring various provisions to ordinary law. This includes pro- visions on the jury. Material amendments in the FPA and the FLFE A number of questions concerning the material content of the con- stitutional regulations have been addressed in the course of the work on the FPA and the FLFE. Conditions for limiting freedom of the press and of expression The FPA and the FLFE contain a number of provisions stating that certain issues may be regulated by law (delegation provisions). In most cases, the provisions do not indicate how far-reaching the limitations are allowed to be. It can be noted that it is somewhat unclear to what extent the limitation rules in Chapter 2, Articles 21–23 of the Instrument of Government apply when the freedom of the press and of expression is limited by virtue of delegation provisions in the FPA and the FLFE. In certain cases reference is made to these provisions, but in others the legislative text does not make it clear what rules apply. The Committee considers that there is a need to clarify the conditions under which the freedom of the press and of expression laid down in the FPA and the FLFE may be limited by law. This should be done by introducing new provisions in the FPA and the FLFE referring to the limitation rules in the Instrument of Gov- ernment. In addition, there is a general provision stating that the protection guaranteed by the constitution may never be limited to such an extent as to threaten the purposes of the constitution. The Committees deliberations and proposals in this area are contained in Chapter 12. Extended obligation to distribute The FPA and the FLFE include an obligation to distribute, mean- ing that postal services and other common cannot refuse to distribute written matter and technical recordings, or make distri- bution subject to special conditions, on grounds of content. A few years ago, a case in which distribution was refused re- vealed a loophole in this provision. This occurred when a postal service company refused to distribute unaddressed consignments (bulk mail) on grounds of the content. In our view, a party authorised to provide postal services should not be able to refuse to distribute unaddressed written matter or technical recordings on grounds of their content. The proposal is based on the reasoning that only a few compa- nies offer postal services for the distribution of written matter and technical recordings, and only one has nationwide services. This means that a party refused distribution on grounds of the content of the written matter or technical recording would have difficulty communicating their message. does not consider that a similar obligation to distribute should be introduced for internet operators and host service providers. The number of providers of services that make such publication possible in various ways is large enough to prevent any refusal to distribute having a decisive negative impact on the freedom of expression. The reasoning behind the proposal is described in greater detail in Chapter 13. Changes in the database rule The database rule in Chapter 1, Article 9 of the FLFE is compli- cated and hard to understand. The application of this rule has also been problematic. One problem has concerned the automatic constitutional pro- tection of mass media companies. Under the database rule in the FLFE, the fundamental law applies to databases made available by the editorial office of a printed periodical or radio programme. has considered whether the concept of the editorial office should be abandoned or changed but has concluded that the advantages of such a change do not outweigh the disadvantages. The second problem of application that the Committee has con- sidered is the issue of the implications of external information pro- viders being able to influence the contents of a database. Individu- als or production companies, for example, may independently up- date a media companys website. proposes that the legislative text should make it clear that constitutional protection is not affected by such updates, as long as they are made on the in- structions of the party conducting the operations. The third problem of application concerns the applicability of the fundamental law to databases containing components that can be directly influenced by recipients, e.g. through non-moderated user comments. The current legislative text can be taken to mean that the constitutional protection of the entire database lapses if any part of it can be affected by anyone other than the party con- ducting the operations. We propose an explicit provision stating that the fundamental law shall not apply to the specific parts of the database that can be changed by someone other than the party conducting the operations. The fundamental law will apply in all other respects. Our proposals concerning the database rule are described in greater detail in Chapter 15. Many newspaper companies make material from their printed newspapers available to the public in databases. PressText Online and are two examples of such services. Until 2003 it was thought that such databases came under the supplement rule in Chapter 1, Article 7, second paragraph of the The rule put a faithful reproduction of the contents of a newspaper on the same footing as a supplement to the printed pe- riodical, when the reproduction took the form of a radio pro- gramme or technical recording. The supplement rule was assumed to also apply when the contents of printed periodicals were made available in databases of the type referred to in Chapter 1, Article 9 of the FLFE. Consequently, archive databases belonging to mass media companies would have enjoyed automatic constitutional protection. However, since a Supreme Court decision of 2003 it has been clear that archive databases belonging to newspaper com- panies are not covered by the supplement rule but instead come under the database rule in the FLFE. This has created a number of problems. The Committee considers that special constitutional protection is needed for archive databases belonging to newspaper companies. The responsibility for the contents of such archives should be kept together with the responsibility for the printed periodical. We therefore propose the introduction in the FPA of a new provision to the effect that the party responsible for the original publication in the printed periodical shall bear the responsibility for the materi- al made available in the archive database. This change would mean that the statutory limitation period for such publications in archive databases would be calculated from the time of publication of the printed periodical. , public prosecution would become time- barred six months after the publication of the printed periodical. has considered introducing a possibility for courts to order the removal of certain contents from such databases. However, we have concluded that there is no need to introduce such a rule at present. The proposal is described in greater detail in Chapter 16. also proposes the introduction of a special rule for talking newspapers made available as technical recordings or radio programmes, or from a database. This will be conditional on the contents reproducing all or parts of the printed periodical and be- ing specially adapted for persons with disabilities. The statutory limitation period for such reproductions will be calculated from the time at which the printed periodical was pub- . The responsibility for these reproductions will be kept to- gether with the responsibility for the printed periodical. The reasoning behind the rule for talking newspapers is given in Chapter 16. A delegation provision on product information etc. A new delegation provision will be brought into the FPA and the FLFE concerning requirements to introduce and formulate in a certain way warning texts, declarations of contents and other simi- lar product information occurring in media covered by the funda- mental laws. Examples include printed information on packaging and package leaflets. The exception will apply provided that the information is not explicitly designed to influence or shape opin- ions. Our proposal means that the fundamental laws will not pose any obstacle to issuing legislative provisions on such information. The proposed provisions will give explicit constitutional sup- port to an exception that already applies today. The advantage seen in giving the exception written form in the fundamental laws is that this will clarify the scope of application, making it easier to under- stand and apply the regulations. Moreover, it can be assumed that in international negotiations – not least in the EU – the chances of winning acceptance for the Swedish position will increase if it rests on a distinct principle with explicit constitutional support. The reasons for introducing the delegation provision are con- tained in Chapter 17. Questions that the Committee has not had time to consider in detail For reasons of time, it has been impossible to devote more far- reaching analysis or closer consideration to various issues that have come up in the course of the Committees work. Among the issues raised, particular mention may be made of the protection of sources when the source is an employee in private operations financed by public funds. Another issue that has come up is the possibility of extending the provision on agitation against a national or ethnic group to include transgender people and people with disabilities. A third issue has concerned the possibility of tak- ing various coercive measures such as a search of premises and con- fiscation of material at editorial offices and other places where in- formation may be found that is covered by the protection of sources. These matters are described in greater detail in Chapter 18. Other questions that the Committee has been instructed to consider Apart from its main task – to consider the possibility of introduc- ing a technology-independent fundamental law on freedom of the press and of expression – the Committee has also been instructed to consider and present proposals on three issues. The question of stronger protection of privacy In accordance with its terms of reference, the Committee has dis- cussed whether a penal provision on the protection of privacy should be introduced in the FPA and the FLFE. Several variants of such a penal provision have been drafted. We have found that the private lives of individuals enjoy limited protection in Swedish do- mestic legislation and that the protection offered by law is relative- ly weak by international comparison. Our assessment of whether or not a penal provision should be introduced in the area protected by the constitution has been de- termined by two factors: whether it is needed, and whether can be considered to have an international obligation to do so. The Committees analysis of the need has indicated that in ef- fect, no violations of privacy occur in the area protected by the constitution that could justify a special penal provision. Moreover, we have not found that obligations under Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are sufficiently clear as to justify, on their own, the in- troduction of a new freedom of the press and of expression of- fence. The Committee considers there is a risk that a new penal provision would inhibit the journalistic activities of the media cov- ered by constitutional protection. We have therefore concluded that at present, there is no reason to propose a penal provision on protection of privacy in the fundamental laws. On the other hand, we believe we can confirm that there is a clear need of a general penal provision outside the area protected by the constitution. Our assessment is that there is reason for the Government to consider such a provision. Our deliberations in this area are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 19. Position of individuals with respect to the media The terms of reference require the Committee to consider whether the procedural safeguards available to individuals in the event of defamation in the media, for example, should be strengthened. To this end, the Committee has discussed the rules on public prosecu- tion and rules on legal costs. We propose a slight extension of the possibility of bringing a public prosecution in the event of defamation. Defamation differs from most other types of offence in one crucial regard, namely, that the primary assumption in defamation offences is that it is up to the individual concerned to bring pro- ceedings and prosecute his or her claim. Under a special rule in the Swedish Penal Code on assessing whether prosecution proceedings can be initiated, a public prosecution may only be brought if the injured party reports the offence for prosecution and, for special reasons, prosecution is deemed to be warranted in the public inter- est. Private prosecution has several disadvantages for the injured party, most significantly that the injured party personally has to take responsibility for the investigation of the offence and the ac- tual prosecution, as well as risking having to pay the defendants legal costs if he or she loses the case. Public prosecution of defamation offences only occurs in excep- tional cases. Since 2000, the Chancellor of has brought a public prosecution for defamation in just one case. Outside the area under constitutional protection, public prosecution is some- what more widespread. We consider it reasonable that the public authorities should be responsible for the penal prosecution of defamation offences in rather more cases than at present. This should be achieved by in- creasing the possibility of bringing a public prosecution for such offences. We therefore propose that special reasons should no longer be required for public prosecution and that it should suffice that public prosecution is warranted in the public interest. Howev- er, the requirement that the injured party report the offence should be kept. We also propose a differently formulated provision on the off- setting of legal costs in freedom of the press and of expression cases. The Act with provisions in the areas of the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental on Freedom of Expression contains a special legal costs rule for freedom of the press and of expression cases. The rule applies if the injured party has represent- ed himself or herself in a case in which the question of liability has been examined by a jury. In such cases, the court may decide that each party shall bear its own legal costs, irrespective of the out- come of the case. According to the preparatory materials for the provision, it is intended for use in cases where the court takes a different view of the question of liability than the jury. The question has been raised of whether applying the offsetting rule in accordance with the statements in the preparatory materials contravenes the presump- tion of innocence in Article 6.2 of Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. We propose reformulation of the provision so as to change the conditions for offsetting costs. In future, offsetting shall not be allowed for the reason that the court takes a different view of the question of liability than the jury. This change will avoid a conflict arising between the provision and the presumption of innocence. Offsetting will be a possible option following an assessment of fairness, with one condition being that the injured party is deemed to have had special cause to have his or her case heard. The Committees deliberations and proposals are described in The Committees remit has included considering under what legal conditions Swedish authorities should be able to provide interna- tional legal assistance to foreign authorities in areas coming under the special constitutional protection of freedom of the press and of expression. The question of such legal assistance may arise, for instance, if for- eign authorities request help with investigative measures, such as confiscation of documents, in connection with a criminal investigation that is taking place in that country. Given the current interpretation of the fundamental laws, is unable, in prac- tice, to provide legal assistance when the FPA and the FLFE are applicable. Having reviewed the development of EU law, particularly in the criminal law area, the Committee concludes that the Swedish posi- tion on the issue of international legal assistance should basically be considered consistent with EU law. Despite this, there is reason to open up some possibility of providing legal assistance even in cases where the fundamental laws apply. therefore proposes that it should be stated in the fundamental laws that a written document or technical record- ing produced in this country will not be regarded as having been published in solely on the grounds that it has been sent to individual recipients abroad. This will increase the possibility of providing international legal assistance. With regard to the protec- tion of correspondents offered to providers of information as well as to writers and other sources, it will be clarified that this applies if the information was communicated in . A new provision is proposed in the FPA and the FLFE on the question of providing international legal assistance in the constitu- tional area. This provision will enable such assistance to be provid- ed where measures are concerned that are permitted by the funda- mental laws. If an application for legal assistance concerns a crime or damages in connection with a crime, a requirement will apply that it concern a punishable offence in both countries. The provi- sion will make international legal assistance conditional on the Governments consent in certain cases. There will be a possibility of issuing more detailed legislative provisions on the examination of applications for legal assistance. The Committees deliberations may be found in Chapter 21. lag om ändring i regeringsformen Härigenom föreskrivs i fråga om regeringsformen att 2 kap. 1 § och punkt 4 i övergångsbestämmelser till lagen (1976:871) om ändring i regeringsformen ska ha följande lydelse. Var och en är gentemot det allmänna tillförsäkrad 1.yttrandefrihet: frihet att i tal, skrift eller bild eller på annat sätt meddela upplysningar samt uttrycka tankar, åsikter och känslor, 2.informationsfrihet: frihet att inhämta och ta emot upp- lysningar samt att i övrigt ta del av andras yttranden, 3.mötesfrihet: frihet att anordna och delta i sammankomster för upplysning, meningsyttring eller annat liknande syfte eller för framförande av konstnärligt verk, 4.demonstrationsfrihet: frihet att anordna och delta i demonstrationer på allmän plats, 5.föreningsfrihet: frihet att sammansluta sig med andra för allmänna eller enskilda syften, och 6.religionsfrihet: frihet att ensam eller tillsammans med andra utöva sin religion. I fråga om tryckfriheten och motsvarande frihet att yttra sig i ljudradio, television och i vissa liknande överföringar, offentliga uppspelningar ur en databas samt filmer, videogram, ljudupptag- I fråga om tryckfriheten och motsvarande frihet att yttra sig i radioprogram, databaser och tek- niska upptagningar gäller tryck- frihetsförordningen och yttrande- frihetsgrundlagen. ningar och andra tekniska upptagningar gäller tryckfrihets- förordningen och yttrande- frihetsgrundlagen. I tryckfrihetsförordningen finns också bestämmelser om rätt att ta del av allmänna handlingar. Utan hinder av 2 kap. 1 § 3 Utan hinder av 2 kap. 1 § 3 och 14 § första stycket får det i lag och 24 § första stycket får det i föreskrivas att filmer och video- lag föreskrivas att tekniska upp- gran inte får förevisas offentligt tagningar inte får förevisas om de inte har offentligt om de inte dessför- godkänts för sådan visning. innan har godkänts för sådan får det också föreskrivas att I lag får det också före- offentlig uppspelning av rörliga skrivas att offentlig uppspelning bilder ur en databas inte får ske, av rörliga bilder ur en databas inte får ske, om inte bilderna dessför- har godkänts för sådan upp- innan har godkänts för sådan upp- Denna lag träder i kraft . lag om ändring i tryckfrihetsförordningen Härigenom förskrivs i fråga om yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen dels att 1, 3–14 kap. ska upphöra att gälla, dels att 2 kap. 1–18 §§, samt att rubrikerna närmast före 2 kap. 1–18 §§, ska ha följande lydelse, dels att i tryckfrihetsförordningen ska införas tretton nya kapitel, 1, 3–14 kap., av följande lydelse. Tryckfrihetens ändamål och innebörd 1 § Tryckfriheten har till ändamål att säkerställa ett fritt menings- utbyte, en fri och allsidig upplysning och ett fritt konstnärligt skapande. Med tryckfrihet förstås rätten för var och en att ge ut skrifter utan att någon myndighet eller något annat allmänt organ hindrar detta i förväg, att åtalas för skriftens innehåll först efter att den har getts ut och då vid en laglig domstol, och att kunna straffas för skriftens innehåll enbart om detta strider mot tydlig lag. Tryckfriheten innebär en frihet för var och en att i tryckt skrift yttra sina tankar, åsikter och känslor samt offentliggöra allmänna handlingar och i övrigt lämna uppgifter i vilket ämne som helst. När tryckfriheten utövas ska bestämmelser i denna grundlag som skyddar enskildas rätt och allmän säkerhet iakttas. I tryckfriheten får inga andra begränsningar göras än som följer av denna grundlag. 2 § Det ska stå var och en fritt att meddela uppgifter i vilket ämne som helst för offentliggörande i en tryckt skrift. Denna frihet avser uppgifter som lämnas till en författare eller någon annan upphovs- man till en framställning i en tryckt skrift, till skriftens utgivare eller redaktion eller till ett företag för yrkesmässig förmedling av nyheter eller andra meddelanden till periodiska skrifter. Det ska stå var och en fritt att anskaffa uppgifter i vilket ämne som helst för att offentliggöra dem i en tryckt skrift eller för att lämna uppgifter som avses i första stycket. I dessa friheter får inga andra begränsningar göras än de som följer av denna grundlag. Förbud mot förhandsgranskning och andra hindrande åtgärder 3 § En skrift får inte granskas av en myndighet eller ett annat all- mänt organ före tryckningen. Förbud mot tryckning får inte före- komma. Det är inte heller tillåtet för en myndighet eller ett annat allmänt organ att, utan stöd i denna grundlag, hindra tryckning eller utgiv- ning av en skrift, om det sker på grund av skriftens innehåll. Det- samma gäller i fråga om hinder mot spridning av en skrift bland allmänheten. Förbud mot ingripanden utan stöd i grundlag 4 § Myndigheter och andra allmänna organ får inte utan stöd i denna grundlag ingripa mot någon för att han eller hon i en tryckt skrift har missbrukat tryckfriheten eller medverkat till ett sådant missbruk. Inte heller får de utan stöd i denna grundlag av sådan anledning ingripa mot skriften. Instruktion för tillämpningen av grundlagen