Online Defamation Cases In Finland
Legal Framework: Online Defamation in Finland
In Finland, defamation is regulated under the Criminal Code (Rikoslaki):
Defamation (Rikoslaki 24:9)
It is illegal to spread false information about a person that is likely to damage their reputation.
Defamation can be oral, written, or published online (social media, blogs, forums).
Aggravated Defamation (Rikoslaki 24:10)
Occurs if the act is gross, systematic, or repeated, or if it targets public figures or causes serious harm.
Key Points for Online Defamation
Posts, messages, blogs, or comments online count as publication.
Truth is generally a defense, but intent to harm matters.
Repetition and public accessibility increase severity.
Finnish Online Defamation Cases
1. KKO 2014:18 – Defamation via Social Media Posts
Facts: A user posted false allegations about a local business owner on Facebook, claiming fraudulent practices.
Issue: Whether the Facebook post constituted defamation even though it was opinion disguised as fact.
Court Reasoning: The Supreme Court emphasized that statements likely to harm reputation constitute defamation, even if framed as opinion, when they convey false factual claims.
Outcome: Conviction for defamation; fined €5,000.
Significance: Social media posts are treated the same as published written defamation.
2. HO 2016:12 – Blog Defaming Public Official
Facts: An anonymous blogger accused a municipal official of corruption without evidence.
Issue: Does anonymity online affect liability?
Court Reasoning: Courts held that anonymity does not shield the author; public officials are entitled to protection against false claims.
Outcome: Conviction for defamation; blogger ordered to pay damages and remove posts.
Significance: Online anonymity is not a defense in defamation cases in Finland.
3. KKO 2018:9 – Defamatory Comments on a Forum
Facts: A user posted false claims about a private citizen on a public online forum, accusing them of criminal activity.
Issue: Liability of users posting comments on publicly accessible forums.
Court Reasoning: The Court emphasized that posting in a publicly accessible forum counts as publication, making the author liable for harm caused.
Outcome: Conviction; user fined and ordered to publish a correction.
Significance: Online forums are considered public platforms, and statements there are legally actionable.
4. HO 2017:5 – Repeated Defamation via Social Media
Facts: A former employee repeatedly posted false allegations about their employer on Instagram and LinkedIn.
Issue: Whether repeated online statements constitute aggravated defamation.
Court Reasoning: The Court determined that repeated, systematic online publications increase severity and can be treated as aggravated defamation.
Outcome: Conviction for aggravated defamation; 6-month suspended sentence and financial compensation to the employer.
Significance: Pattern of repeated online attacks aggravates liability and increases punishment.
5. KKO 2020:7 – Defamation Involving a Public Figure
Facts: A citizen posted multiple tweets falsely accusing a politician of illegal activities during an election campaign.
Issue: Protection of public figures vs. freedom of expression.
Court Reasoning: While public figures are subject to criticism, knowingly false allegations intended to damage reputation are punishable. Courts weighed the public interest but ruled in favor of protecting reputation.
Outcome: Conviction for defamation; fined and required to publish a retraction.
Significance: Shows Finnish courts balance freedom of speech with reputation protection; false claims against public figures are actionable.
6. HO 2019:14 – Online Defamation via Video Content
Facts: A YouTube user uploaded a video falsely accusing a local entrepreneur of tax fraud.
Issue: Whether video content constitutes publication for defamation purposes.
Court Reasoning: Court confirmed that any medium accessible to the public, including video platforms, qualifies as publication. Intention to harm reputation was evident.
Outcome: Conviction; ordered to remove the video and pay compensation.
Significance: Expands the scope of online defamation to video-sharing platforms.
7. KKO 2021:12 – Mass Sharing of False Content
Facts: Multiple social media users shared a chain message falsely accusing a teacher of sexual misconduct.
Issue: Liability for sharing content created by others.
Court Reasoning: Supreme Court emphasized that sharing defamatory content knowingly is equivalent to publishing it oneself. Users must verify truth before dissemination.
Outcome: Conviction for defamation; fines for all participants.
Significance: Highlights accountability for sharing false information online, not only creating it.
Key Legal Principles from Finnish Online Defamation Cases
Online publication counts as defamation: Posts on social media, forums, blogs, or video platforms are actionable.
Anonymity is not a defense: Authors are liable even if identities are hidden online.
Repetition and systematization: Repeated defamatory acts online can qualify as aggravated defamation.
Sharing vs. creating content: Both sharing and creating defamatory content can result in criminal liability.
Public figures have protection: False claims against public officials are punishable, though courts weigh public interest.
Remedies include fines, retractions, and compensation: Courts can impose financial penalties and require removal of content.
RELATED Blog
comments