Moreover, this situation by extension could threaten the vital protection that (real) journalists must have, like protection against having to disclose their sources etc. That is, if the law is misused in this way, someone will surely get the bright idea that the law must be thrown out in its entirety.
Isn't that the core of the issue? Who decides what is journalism?
MrKoll is mentioned in the article but there are identical databases that originally were used to track the political opposition and are now partly accessible for selected "journalists", among others. Should those databases exist because they make their own rules on who is a journalist? What about a user posting a comment on Reddit or Flashback that used MrKoll for the information? Is that journalism, making MrKoll a journalistic database?
This legal battle might have a major impact on Swedish newspapers.
There are several issues at play here I think, but to take one: Who decides?
As long as journalists enjoy certain judicial privileges it is natural that the democratic state grants these certifications. This is not controversial in Nordic countries as it might be elsewhere.
Journalism has a well defined meaning in language. The concept has been interpreted extremely liberally up to now in Sweden. This can be carefully tightened without trespassing into undemocratic territory. The alternative - that anyone can register as a journalistic business without any certification will likely result in those privileges being removed. This is the real danger here.