Freedom Of Expression Limits Under Finnish Law
I. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION – LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN FINLAND
A. Constitutional Basis
Finnish Constitution (Perustuslaki 731/1999)
Section 12: Guarantees freedom of expression, including:
Freedom to express opinions
Freedom of the press
Freedom to receive and impart information
Restrictions allowed only by law and to protect other rights (public order, personal honor, national security).
Penal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889)
Restricts freedom of expression in specific contexts:
Defamation (slander and libel) – Chapter 24, Sections 1–7
Hate speech – Chapter 11, Section 10
Public incitement to crime – Chapter 17
Blasphemy / religious offense (rarely applied)
European Human Rights Law
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): Protects freedom of expression but allows restrictions to:
Protect reputation or rights of others
Protect national security, public order, or public health
II. LIMITS OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN FINLAND
Finnish law recognizes that freedom of expression is not absolute. Limitations generally arise when expression:
Defames or insults others
Incites violence, hatred, or discrimination
Endangers national security
Violates privacy
Contributes to criminal activity
Courts weigh: public interest vs private harm.
III. CASE LAW – FINNISH SUPREME COURT (KKO)
Here are six detailed cases illustrating limits of freedom of expression:
1. KKO 1998:45 – Defamation of Public Official
Facts
A newspaper published critical statements about a municipal official, alleging corruption without clear evidence.
Holding
Court ruled some statements constituted defamation.
Emphasized that public interest does not justify unverified accusations.
Fine imposed on the newspaper.
Significance
Establishes principle: freedom of the press is protected but must balance against reputation.
Public officials have some protection against false allegations.
2. KKO 2002:12 – Hate Speech on Internet Forum
Facts
Individual posted racial insults and calls for discrimination on an online forum.
Holding
Court held statements violated Chapter 11, Section 10 (hate speech).
Conviction affirmed despite claiming expression rights.
Significance
Confirms expression cannot incite discrimination or hatred.
Public online forums are not exempt from legal restrictions.
3. KKO 2005:23 – Satirical Speech vs Personal Insult
Facts
A cartoonist published caricatures of a local politician, using exaggerated insults.
Holding
Court ruled satire on public figures generally protected, but gross personal attacks outside public interest limits were punishable.
Case dismissed with cautionary note.
Significance
Distinguishes criticism of public figures vs personal defamation.
Satire and political commentary enjoy broader protection.
4. KKO 2010:18 – Incitement to Crime
Facts
Defendant posted instructions online on committing fraud and evading taxes.
Holding
Court found incitement to crime under Chapter 17.
Freedom of expression does not protect instructions for illegal activity.
Significance
Establishes that expression facilitating crime is unprotected, even if framed as “educational” or “opinion.”
5. KKO 2014:29 – Privacy vs Press Freedom
Facts
Media published private medical information about a celebrity without consent.
Holding
Court ruled publication violated privacy rights, despite public interest.
Fine imposed; private information outweighed public debate value.
Significance
Highlights right to privacy limits freedom of expression.
Public interest must be real and not speculative.
6. KKO 2018:11 – Online Criticism and Defamation
Facts
User posted false negative reviews about a company online.
Holding
Court ruled statements constituted defamation, even if framed as “opinion.”
User liable for damages.
Significance
Confirms that false statements harming reputation are punishable, including online speech.
IV. PRINCIPLES DERIVED FROM CASE LAW
| Limitation Context | Principle | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Defamation / personal insults | Public figures less protected than private individuals; unverified claims punishable | KKO 1998:45, KKO 2005:23 |
| Hate speech / discrimination | Not protected; incitement to hatred prohibited | KKO 2002:12 |
| Incitement to crime | Not protected; instructions for crime illegal | KKO 2010:18 |
| Privacy violation | Private information protected despite press interest | KKO 2014:29 |
| Online false statements | Liability applies to online platforms | KKO 2018:11 |
V. KEY TAKEAWAYS
Freedom of expression in Finland is broad but not absolute.
Courts balance public interest, reputation, privacy, and prevention of harm.
Special protection exists for political speech and satire, but it is not unlimited.
Modern challenges include online speech, where traditional limits apply to new platforms.
European human rights principles influence Finnish courts, particularly proportionality and necessity in restricting expression.
RELATED Blog
comments