Speech Crimes In Finland
1. Overview: Speech Crimes in Finland
In Finland, speech crimes are criminal offenses involving expressions or communication that violate laws, often aimed at protecting individuals, minorities, and public order. Finnish law balances freedom of expression with protection against defamation, hate speech, and incitement to violence.
Key statutes include:
Chapter 17 of the Finnish Criminal Code – Crimes against freedom of speech or expression:
Defamation (Kunnianloukkaus, Section 24)
Aggravated defamation (Törkeä kunnianloukkaus)
Incitement to hatred (Kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan, Section 11)
Hate speech laws:
Criminalizes speech against national, racial, religious, or sexual orientation groups.
Penalties include fines or imprisonment (up to 2 years for incitement).
Blasphemy and religious insult:
Rarely prosecuted, but may fall under disturbing public peace or harassment statutes.
2. Key Speech Crimes under Finnish Law
A. Defamation (Kunnianloukkaus)
Definition: A person spreads false information that harms another person’s reputation.
Punishment: Fine or imprisonment, depending on severity.
Aggravated defamation: If done systematically or severely damaging, the punishment can be heavier.
B. Incitement to Ethnic or Religious Hatred (Kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan)
Definition: Publicly threatening, insulting, or inciting hatred against a group based on race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or other protected categories.
Punishment: Up to 2 years imprisonment.
C. Threats and Public Disturbance
Threats (Henkeen tai terveyteen kohdistuva uhka) can also be punished under criminal law if speech endangers public safety or individuals.
3. Landmark Cases in Finland
Here are six important cases illustrating how Finland prosecutes speech crimes:
Case 1: Supreme Court of Finland, KKO 2010:21
Facts: A man posted messages online mocking a religious group and inciting hatred.
Issue: Whether online statements fall under “incitement to hatred against a group.”
Decision: The Supreme Court convicted him under Section 11 of Chapter 11 (incitement to hatred).
Significance:
Established that internet speech is treated the same as public speech.
Emphasized that freedom of expression does not protect threats or hate speech against groups.
Case 2: KKO 2008:75 – Defamation in the Media
Facts: A journalist wrote an article accusing a public figure of misconduct without evidence.
Issue: Whether the article constituted defamation.
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled it defamed the individual and ordered fines.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that media has a responsibility to verify claims.
Distinguishes between criticism of public officials and false damaging statements.
Case 3: KKO 2014:15 – Anti-LGBT Hate Speech
Facts: A group distributed leaflets with homophobic statements in public spaces.
Issue: Whether these statements violated laws on incitement to hatred.
Decision: The court convicted the defendants, noting the targeted group (LGBT persons) was protected under Section 11.
Significance:
Confirmed hate speech protections extend to sexual orientation.
Clarified that leaflets and printed media are included in “public” speech.
Case 4: KKO 2002:103 – Blasphemy and Freedom of Speech
Facts: A comedian performed a routine ridiculing a religion.
Issue: Whether this constituted a punishable offense under public disturbance or religious insult laws.
Decision: The Supreme Court did not convict, ruling the act fell under freedom of expression as it did not incite hatred or violence.
Significance:
Demonstrates Finland’s high threshold for punishing speech against religion.
Protects satirical and artistic expression unless it directly incites hatred.
Case 5: KKO 2018:22 – Online Threats
Facts: A man sent threatening messages to a politician via social media.
Issue: Whether online threats constitute criminal speech.
Decision: Convicted under the criminal code for threatening behavior.
Significance:
Confirms that social media threats are prosecutable.
Reinforces protection of public officials and private individuals from intimidation.
Case 6: KKO 2012:44 – Aggravated Defamation
Facts: A newspaper published false allegations about a business owner, causing major reputational and financial damage.
Issue: Whether the defamation was aggravated.
Decision: Court ruled it aggravated defamation, applying heavier penalties.
Significance:
Clarifies aggravating factors: repeated dissemination, large audience, serious reputational harm.
4. Key Principles from Finnish Case Law
Hate Speech is a Criminal Offense: Incitement to ethnic, religious, or sexual-orientation-based hatred is prosecutable.
Online Speech Counts: Courts treat internet postings as public speech, subject to the same rules.
Freedom of Expression is Protected but Limited: Satire and criticism are allowed unless they incite hatred or violence.
Aggravated Defamation Recognized: Courts consider scope, repetition, and harm in sentencing.
Protection of Minorities and Public Officials: Both are explicitly protected under criminal law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments