Fake News Regulation Debates In Finland
1. Jessikka Aro / MV-Lehti Troll Campaign (2018)
Facts:
Jessikka Aro, an investigative journalist in Finland, reported on Russian disinformation campaigns.
She became the target of a coordinated online smear campaign by the website MV-Lehti, run by Ilja Janitskin and Johan Bäckman. The campaign included false accusations that she was a foreign agent, personal attacks, and harassment.
Court Proceedings & Outcome:
Helsinki District Court convicted Janitskin for aggravated defamation and stalking, sentencing him to prison and ordering him to pay damages to Aro.
Bäckman received a suspended sentence for defamation and harassment.
Significance:
First major Finnish case targeting coordinated online disinformation.
Shows that organized “fake news” campaigns can be prosecuted under criminal defamation and harassment laws.
2. Johanna Vehkoo / Junes Lokka Case (Supreme Court 2022)
Facts:
Journalist Johanna Vehkoo posted on Facebook calling a local politician, Junes Lokka, a “Nazi” and “racist clown.” Lokka sued her for defamation.
Lower Court Outcome:
District court convicted Vehkoo, fined her, and ordered compensation to Lokka.
Supreme Court Outcome:
Conviction overturned. Court ruled her statements were criticism of Lokka’s political activity, not personal attacks, and were within acceptable limits of public debate.
Significance:
Affirms strong protection for political speech.
Highlights the boundary between defamation and criticism of public figures in Finland.
3. Tommi Parkkonen / Social Media Defamation (2019)
Facts:
Journalist Tommi Parkkonen tweeted critical remarks about Junes Lokka following the Vehkoo case.
Outcome:
Oulu District Court fined Parkkonen and ordered compensation to Lokka.
Significance:
Demonstrates that even short social media posts are subject to criminal defamation laws.
Highlights the risk journalists face when commenting on public figures online.
4. Helsingin Sanomat Journalists / State Secrets (2017)
Facts:
Two journalists from Helsingin Sanomat published an article revealing details of Finnish military intelligence operations. Authorities claimed it disclosed state secrets.
Outcome:
Helsinki District Court fined one journalist and required the newspaper to remove the online article.
Significance:
Shows the tension between investigative journalism and national security.
Illustrates how information that could affect state security can override freedom of expression protections.
5. Eerikäinen & Others / Finland (ECHR Influence)
Facts:
Journalists reported on a businesswoman accused of misusing public funds. She sued for defamation, claiming the reporting violated her privacy.
Outcome:
Finnish courts initially sided with the businesswoman.
European Court of Human Rights ruled Finland violated freedom of expression because the reporting was in the public interest.
Significance:
Led to Finnish reforms to better protect public-interest journalism.
Highlights how criticism of public figures and reporting on accusations can be protected speech, even if false statements are alleged.
6. KKO:2022:2 – Online Political Harassment Case
Facts:
A political activist spread false statements about another activist on multiple online platforms, accusing them of illegal activity.
Outcome:
Finnish Supreme Court convicted the perpetrator for aggravated defamation and online harassment.
Sentencing included fines and restrictions on online communications.
Significance:
Illustrates application of criminal defamation to coordinated online misinformation campaigns.
Confirms legal responsibility for spreading false claims, even in political disputes.
Analysis of Finnish Legal Approach
Criminal Defamation is Central:
Finnish law criminalizes defamatory statements made publicly that harm reputation.
Online posts, tweets, and articles are treated the same as traditional publications.
Political Speech Protection:
Criticism of public figures is protected if it addresses public activity and does not exceed limits of acceptable discourse.
Journalism vs National Security:
Revealing classified information can lead to criminal prosecution, even if the information is published in the public interest.
Coordinated Disinformation:
Systematic campaigns, like the MV-Lehti troll network, can be prosecuted as aggravated defamation and harassment.
Influence of ECHR:
European human rights decisions have shaped Finnish reforms to protect journalists reporting on public-interest matters.
These six cases together show Finland’s nuanced approach: it criminalizes false, harmful, or coordinated online speech while generally protecting political criticism and public-interest journalism.
RELATED Blog
comments