Social media regulation by Finnish authorities
Finnish Legal and Regulatory Framework (outline)
(Some of this will be implicit in the case law below, but to understand the cases better, key rules include:)
Freedom of Expression is protected under Finnish law, including in the Constitution and through the Act on the Exercise of Freedom of Expression in Mass Media (Media Freedom Act).
There are criminal provisions against defamation, incitement to ethnic or racial hatred, etc.
Privacy, personal reputation, and data protection are also protected—both under domestic law and European human rights law.
The courts often need to balance freedom of expression (especially on matters of public interest) against competing rights such as privacy, reputation, and in some cases public order or protection of minors.
Key Case Law in Finland: Examples & Detailed Analysis
Here are more than five important cases, explained in depth, showing how Finnish courts handle issues arising from social media, internet media, or online speech.
1. Vehkoo v. Lokka (“Calling someone a ‘Nazi clown’” on Facebook) — KKO:2022:1
Facts: A (journalist or author) posted on Facebook, referring to B (political figure, city councillor) using strong derogatory terms (“Nazi”, “racist”, “Nazi clown”), saying B intended to come and disturb A’s public appearance, etc. This was during a political or public debate situation. korkeinoikeus.fi+1
Lower courts: The District Court found her guilty of defamation, saying that the terms exceeded what is allowed even in public debate. She was fined. korkeinoikeus.fi+1
Supreme Court’s decision: The Supreme Court overturned the defamation conviction. It held that:
The post was a criticism of the conduct of B as a public/political actor, rather than a personal attack outside the realm of public interest.
The fact that the terms were harsh did not, in this context, automatically make it defamation; the freedom of expression and public interest weighed heavily.
The threshold for defamation is higher when the speech concerns political or public life. korkeinoikeus.fi+1
Significance: This case shows that even strong or insulting language may be protected if it is part of public debate and directed at public figures, especially in social media contexts. It illustrates how courts weigh freedom of expression in public interest against reputation, with a higher tolerance for criticism.
2. KKO:2019:81 — Cease Order Against Online Posts
Facts: An internet publication had posts (articles + comments) which alleged various defamatory or wrongful things about “A” (a private person, though identified by name, photo, home town, past/current employers). The posts included allegations, speculation, and labeling (“Internet Snitch”, “defender of paedophiles”, etc.). The question was whether a court should order that the posts be taken down (or distribution ceased) under Section 18 of the Media Freedom Act, which allows for such orders if the content clearly infringes privacy or honor and is evidently criminal if made public. korkeinoikeus.fi
Decision: The Supreme Court considered whether the threshold for issuing a cease and desist order was met. Key points:
The content did include serious allegations, personal data, naming, etc., which affected the private person’s honor / privacy.
But courts are cautious about restricting freedom of expression, so the standard for “evident infringement” is high. The post must clearly be criminal or unlawful.
The court examined whether the post was defamatory or violating personal privacy under criminal/privacy law, whether the person is a public or private figure, the nature of the claims, whether there was evidence, degree of harm, etc.
Outcome / Principles: The court granted a cease order, i.e. required that the abusive or defamatory posts/comments be removed/distribution stopped, in the circumstances. This shows that Finnish law allows removal/injunctions (not only penalties) when privacy/honor are clearly violated. The balancing test is strict. korkeinoikeus.fi
3. MV‑Lehti (Ilja Janitskin) – Libel, Racism and Internet Media Owner Sentenced
Facts: The owner/editor of internet media MV‑Lehti (Ilja Janitskin) published libelous and racist materials about specific persons. Some writings were targeted at public figures or journalists. The Court found no public interest or legitimate basis for some of these publications. Xinhua+2Wikipedia+2
Criminal Prosecution & Sentence: He was sentenced (in 2018) to imprisonment (1 year and 10 months) for racially aggravated libel and defamation. Also ordered to pay substantial compensation to victims. Xinhua
Significance:
Shows that Finnish courts do not accept “public interest” justification when claims are false, malicious, or amount to hate speech.
Racial hatred / incitement to hatred is taken seriously even in online media.
The severity of penalties can be high (prison time) when expression crosses lines (defamation + racism).
4. Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy & Satamedia Oy v. Finland — Taxation Data Publication
Facts: Two companies published individuals’ taxable income and assets in magazines and via SMS‐based services. The Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman and Data Protection Board tried to stop them, saying this violated privacy/data protection laws. Initially, the publication was allowed under “journalistic exception.” Over time, courts evaluated how much data, how publicly, how widely, etc. Global Freedom of Expression+1
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR): The companies brought a case to the ECtHR after domestic proceedings. The Court found that the restriction imposed by Finnish authorities was lawful. Key reasons:
While taxation data had been publicly accessible (Finland has some tradition of openness in tax data), the scale and method of publication (e.g. via SMS service, wide dissemination) exceeded what was intended or acceptable.
The courts found that although the companies’ activities were expression/media activities, privacy of individuals and their reputation must be protected.
The interference was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aim (privacy, data protection), and was necessary in a democratic society. The Court accepted that domestic authorities had a margin of appreciation. Global Freedom of Expression
Outcome: The ban (or restrictions) were upheld; the companies had to stop collecting, processing or distributing data in the problematic way.
5. Niskasaari v. Finland — Defamation of a Reporter
Facts: Journalist Niskasaari criticized a reporter of Finland’s public broadcaster, accusing him of fabricating information in documentaries (one about mold‑infested houses, another about forest area statistics). Niskasaari alleged falsification; the reporter contested. The issue was whether Niskasaari’s statements were defamation. Domestic courts convicted him and imposed damages. Global Freedom of Expression
ECtHR Decision: The Court held that the conviction violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. It emphasized:
The subject was of public interest; journalism about documentary work.
The plaintiff was a public figure/journalist.
The evidence or reasonableness of the criticism was relevant; there were different statistics, uncertainty, etc.
Sanctions/damages must be proportionate; Court found that domestic authorities did not strike a fair balance between reputation and freedom of expression. Global Freedom of Expression
Significance: This illustrates how Finnish courts (and the ECtHR when reviewing) require that defamation convictions especially concerning public interest require strong justification; uncertainty in facts must favour the speaker where appropriate; damages should not crush speech.
6. The Jessikka Aro / Bäckman Case — Hate Speech / Systematic Online Harassment
Facts: Jessikka Aro is a Finnish journalist who had been investigating pro‑Russian disinformation. She was subject to a campaign of online harassment, including false accusations, racist or defamatory comments, etc., primarily by Ilja Janitskin, Johan Bäckman, and others associated with MV‑Lehti or similar outlets. The harassment included defamation, stalking, threats. Wikipedia+1
Domestic Prosecution & Conviction: In 2018, Helsinki District Court found Ilja Janitskin, Johan Bäckman, and an associate guilty of aggravated defamation and stalking, required to pay damages. Janitskin got a prison sentence. Bäckman got suspended sentence etc. Later on, some defamation charges were dropped or modified on appeal, but stalking and harassment convictions remained. Wikipedia+1
Significance:
Shows that online defamation/hate speech and harassment are prosecuted seriously.
Even when speech is online, the legal principles of defamation, harassment, privacy apply.
Cases like this reinforce that journalism may trigger aggressive backlash, but courts do not give carte blanche to attackers — there are liability and penalties.
Comparison, Key Principles, and How Courts’ Balancing Works
From these and similar cases, some consistent principles emerge in Finnish jurisprudence regarding social media / online expression regulation:
| Principle | What it means / How courts apply it |
|---|---|
| Public Interest / Public Figure vs Private Person | Criticism of public figures or political actors gets more leeway. The threshold for what is acceptable derogatory or harsh language is higher when speech is part of public debate. |
| Truth / Evidence | If the speaker’s claims can be substantiated (or there is reasonable basis / uncertainty), this supports protection. Conversely, false claims or serious misrepresentations can lead to liability. |
| Nature of Expression / Tone | Harsh, insulting, provocative speech may still be protected in public debate, but purely personal attacks not tied to criticism of public actions are less likely to be. |
| Privacy, Personal Data, Reputation | Persons have rights to honor, privacy. Disclosure of personal data, name/photo, false allegations can trigger liability. Courts examine whether publication was necessary / proportionate. |
| Remedies / Penalties | Courts may order fines, compensation, injunctions (cease‐orders), removal of content, in criminal or civil proceedings. Severity depends on harm, nature, scale, intent. |
| Freedom of Expression as a Fundamental Right | Courts begin with strong presumption in favor of free expression; restrictions must be justified, lawful, pursuing legitimate aim, and necessary in a democratic society. |
Some Hypothetical / Borderline Issues
While the above are real cases, they also highlight grey‐areas or open questions:
How far can insults go before they become defamation? What if someone uses offensive language, but it’s clear it's opinion, not assertion of fact?
How does anonymity or comments sections / user comments affect liability?
How do “platform liability” issues arise (to what extent is the host platform responsible vs individual posters)?
How national law adapts to EU rules (GDPR, ECHR) especially on data protection, “right to be forgotten”, etc.
RELATED Blog
0 comments