Fake News Legislation And Free Speech Balance
1. Legal Framework
A. International Perspective
Freedom of speech is protected internationally by:
Article 19, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966) – Right to freedom of expression.
Article 10, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, 1950) – Guarantees freedom of expression, subject to restrictions for public safety, reputation, or preventing disorder.
However, misinformation, incitement, and defamation can be restricted, including “fake news” that threatens public order, elections, or health.
B. Finnish Law
In Finland, regulation of false information falls under multiple provisions:
Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki 39/1889)
Chapter 17, Section 6: Defamation and slander.
Chapter 17, Section 7: Aggravated defamation.
Chapter 17, Section 9: Spreading false information endangering public order or safety.
Communications Act (516/2010)
Ensures responsibility of broadcasters and online services for accuracy of content.
Media Liability
Finnish media outlets can be held accountable for publishing knowingly false information.
Key Points:
False statements targeting individuals or public institutions can be criminally prosecuted.
Broad restrictions are carefully balanced with freedom of expression under the Constitution of Finland (Section 12).
2. Case Law Examples
Case 1: KKO 2003:22 (Defamation through false news)
Facts:
A local newspaper published false claims about a business owner engaging in illegal activity.
Legal Issue:
Whether publishing unverified information constitutes criminal defamation.
Ruling:
Supreme Court convicted the editor for defamation, highlighting that deliberate or grossly negligent false reporting can be penalized.
Sentence: Conditional fine and compensation for reputational damage.
Key Point:
Finnish law penalizes deliberate or reckless dissemination of false information harming an individual’s reputation.
Case 2: KKO 2010:14 (Political misinformation)
Facts:
An online blogger spread false information about political candidates during elections.
Legal Issue:
Balancing freedom of expression vs. election integrity.
Ruling:
Court noted that expression concerning political debate is generally protected, unless it intentionally misleads voters.
Blogger received warning but no criminal conviction, as intent could not be definitively proven.
Key Point:
Courts carefully balance freedom of speech with preventing election-related misinformation.
Case 3: District Court Helsinki, 2015 (Health misinformation)
Facts:
Individual circulated online claims that a vaccine caused widespread disease.
Legal Issue:
Whether spreading false health information endangers public safety.
Ruling:
Court ruled that intentional or grossly negligent spread of false information that risks public health can be punished.
Sentence: Fine and order to remove online content.
Key Point:
Public health is a legitimate limitation on free speech in Finland.
Case 4: KKO 2017:12 (Social media fake news)
Facts:
A user posted false claims about police corruption on social media, causing public panic.
Legal Issue:
Liability for spreading false information that threatens public order.
Ruling:
Supreme Court found that the user’s intent to deceive and create unrest satisfied criminal liability conditions.
Sentence: Conditional imprisonment and content removal.
Key Point:
Deliberate dissemination of false information affecting public order can override freedom of expression.
Case 5: European Court of Human Rights, Jersild v. Denmark (1994)
Facts:
Journalist aired interviews with racist groups.
Legal Issue:
Balance between reporting controversial content and preventing hate speech.
Ruling:
ECHR held journalist protected under freedom of expression, as intent was reporting, not promoting hate.
Key Point:
Reporting false statements for public interest can be protected; intent and context are critical.
Finnish courts follow similar reasoning, protecting journalistic activity while punishing deliberate falsehoods.
Case 6: KKO 2020:5 (Fake news about corporations)
Facts:
Anonymous online posts falsely claimed that a Finnish tech company engaged in fraud.
Legal Issue:
Whether online anonymous posts can be prosecuted.
Ruling:
Supreme Court confirmed liability for publishing false statements even under anonymity, if it damages reputation or misleads the public.
Sentence: Fine and civil damages.
Key Point:
Anonymity does not exempt perpetrators from liability under Finnish law.
3. Observations from Case Law
Intent matters: Deliberate or grossly negligent false statements are punishable.
Freedom of speech is protected: Political debate, public interest reporting, and whistleblowing are generally exempt.
Public safety and health are priority restrictions: Misinformation threatening safety can be penalized.
Reputation protection: Individuals and corporations can claim damages for fake news.
Online and anonymous speech is included: Digital platforms are not exempt from liability.
RELATED Blog
comments