Freedom of expression is a big deal in Sweden. Tryckfrihetsförordningen (the other constitutional part besides Yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen) dates back to 1766. It's the oldest law ensuring freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
Heja Sverige!
Heja Sverige!
I was curious about this so found https://www.riksdagen.se/en/how-the-riksdag-works/democracy/...
In it they write: "In Sweden, you have the right to have an opinion on anything and say almost anything you want. You have the right to express yourself freely on the radio, TV and the Internet. The Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression sets out these rights. It also describes what is not permitted, for example defaming or publicly insulting another person."
Being prevented from publicly insulting another person seems not only silly in principle, but impracticable.
This is the creepiest thing about a number of countries that claim to have freedom of speech as part of their constitution or laws. Instead of limiting defamation claims to false statements, they make defamation depend on a) the mental state of the accused defamer (did they intend to harm), b) the effect (usually financial) on the alleged defamed, or more likely an unholy combination of the two.
The combination of the two results in, from a), a reliance on the fantasies of the court and law enforcement about other people's mental states (people they like didn't really mean it or didn't completely understand how it would be perceived, people they don't like are evil masterminds), and from b), the wealthier people are, the more dangerous they are to tell the truth about.
a) obviously leads to a VIP justice system for elites and the politically connected. The funny thing about b) is that it's the perfect law to protect quacks and fraudsters, because they'll be the most provably harmed by truthful statements.
A recent high profile case in Sweden seems to establish that persecuting a man, acquitted by court, with continued accusations of sexual assault, through wide-audience Twitter and similar, as well as a number of moderately large audience paper publications, qualifies.
(For context: in the social environment in question the consequences effectively destroy the target's livelihood as well as severely impairing his social life)
But getting to near the end of that one took about five years of process, so I guess it can't have been firmly in obvious territory.
Sweden is not the type of country that I would dare voicing my opinion in. It's simply not worth it.
I don't know what to make of the database with respect to free speech/expression laws. Although admittedly the article says no one enforces that the data is accurate inside it. That seems reciprocal.