No description available.

No description available.

Denna studie handlar om att förstå den svenska yttrandefrihetens gränser i samband med Rasmus Paludans koranbränningsturné runt om i Sverige våren 2022. Studien är en ideologisk argumentationsanalys som studerar koranbränning i media med utgångspunkter i liberalism som idétradition med hjälp av yttrandefrihet, mångfald och tolerans som politiska begrepp. Det valda problemområdet fördjupar sig i mediedebatten som polariserar det svenska samhället och kopplar samman samtid och historia.

Koranbränning är ett fenomen som har kommit att väcka starka känslor. Bränningarna har kallats för hotdrivande och har flera gånger lett till upplopp. Denna uppsats har undersökt huruvida en koranbränningsaktion redan med gällande rätt skulle kunna förbjudas, som hets mot folkgrupp eller genom bestämmelsen om förargelseväckande beteende, utifrån den rättsdogmatiska metoden. Båda lagrummen har en lång historia bakom sig, där hets mot folkgrupp varit den mer specialiserade bestämmelsen, särskilt inriktad mot egenskaper vilka inte bör tåla kritik, då en person inte själv kan påverka dem. Bestämmelsen om förargelseväckande beteende kan närmast ses som en säkerhetsventil, att tillämpa då något annat mer specialiserat lagrum inte kunnat aktualiseras. Vidare kan sägas att hets mot folkgrupp kriminaliserar ett yttrandes innehåll, medan förargelseväckande beteende kan angripa en framförandeform. Rättspraxis om hets mot folkgrupp vittnar om ett starkt yttrandefrihetsskydd, vilket endast kan ge vika för uppenbara överträdelser. Praxis om förargelseväckande beteende är ägnat att påvisa svårigheten att separera ett yttrandes innehåll från dess form. Doktrinen har visat på vilket sätt omständigheterna vid aktionerna kan inverka på den samlade bedömningen av deras straffbarhet, men har också visat juristers olika syn på problemet. I min analys har jag systematiserat och värderat rättskällorna, för att sedan komma till slutsatsen att koranbränning, under vissa förutsättningar skulle kunna lagföras som hets mot folkgrupp respektive förargelseväckande beteende. Även om det inte finns något prejudicerande rättsfall eller någon mer djupgående doktrin om huruvida koranbränning kan anses lagligt eller inte, så menar jag att rättskällorna sammantaget pekar åt att detta mycket väl kan vara fallet.

No description available.

No description available.

<p>Den 1 januari 2003 infördes ”sexuell läggning” i lagen om hets mot folkgrupp. Den främsta anledningen till att ändringen genomfördes var p.g.a. den hetspropaganda som nynazister och andra högerextrema grupper riktade mot homosexuella som grupp. För att ett handlande skall bli straffbart skall ett uttalande eller annat meddelande som sprids hota eller uttrycka missaktning för en folkgrupp eller annan sådan grupp av personer med anspelning på bl.a. sexuell läggning. I samband med denna lagändring behövdes det i tryckfrihetsförordningen och yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen tilläggas ”sexuell läggning” i den s.k. brottskatalogen.</p><p>Införandet av sexuell läggning i straffbestämmelsen innebär en inskränkning i yttrandefriheten som skyddas av tryckfrihetsförordningen och yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen samt Europakonventionen för de mänskliga fri- och rättigheterna. Regeringen ansåg att intresset att skydda homosexuella som grupp var ett ändamål som är tillåtet för inskränkningen. Regeringen anförde vidare att straffstadgandet inte hindrar en fri och saklig debatt och vederhäftig diskussion om homo- bi- och heterosexualitet i kyrkan eller andra områden i samhället. Vad gäller kyrkan och religionsfriheten är det inte straffbart att citera och diskutera t.ex. religiösa urkunder men däremot bör det inte vara tillåtet att genom religiösa texter hota eller uttrycka missaktning för homosexuella som grupp, lika lite som mot andra grupper.</p><p>Ett omdiskuterat fall handlade just om uttalanden inom kyrkan som föll in under bestämmelsen hets mot folkgrupp med anspelning på sexuell läggning. Pastor Åke Green fälldes i tingsrätten, friades av hovrätten och Högsta domstolen. Den främsta anledningen till att han friades i Högsta domstolen var att hans uttalanden i det religiösa sammanhanget inte uttryckte en uppmuntran till eller ett rättfärdigande av hat mot homosexuella som grupp, ett s.k. ”hate speech”. Enligt svensk rätt hade han uttryckt missaktning för homosexuella som grupp men Europakonventionens religions- och yttrandefrihet tillät, i detta specifika fall, inte en sådan inskränkning som straffbestämmelsen utgör.</p><p>I ett annat mål fälldes ett antal tilltalade i tingsrätten men friades av hovrätten. De tilltalade delade ut flygblad vars innehåll uttryckte missaktning för homosexuella som grupp. I flygbladet anförs att Nationell ungdom är upphovsman av uttalandena. Hovrätten anförde att deras agerande föll in under bestämmelsen hets mot folkgrupp men med anledning av domen mot Åke Green friades männen då innehållet i flygbladet inte uppmuntrade till eller rättfärdigade hat mot homosexuella som grupp. HD skall ta upp målet.</p>

<p>Abstract</p><p>This essay begins with a presentation of the complex set of problems which relate to the interaction between freedom of speech and the ban against discrimination based on a person's race, the colour of their skin or ethnic origin, confession of faith or sexual preference (BrB 16:8, incitement to racial hatred). Can conflicts arise between freedom of speech and the ban against discrimination? To shed light on this question, we have chosen to look at the issue from a new perspective. This perspective is based on the new challenges faced by Swedish society as a result of the changed composition of our population, our membership in the EU and our acknowledgment of certain international conventions concerning human rights.</p><p>Fifty years ago our population almost solely comprised of “native Swedes”. Today, because of massive immigration, our country can be described as multiracial and multicultural. This gives rise to questions concerning protecting minority groups from discrimination whilst also attempting to ensure that the non-discrimination acts do not compromise our freedom of speech. Our membership in the EU and our acknowledgement of certain international conventions means that European law and international law sometimes override Swedish law. This restricts our freedom to decide the extent of our non-discrimination statutes, but can have positive effects on the right to freedom of speech and religion.</p><p>The arguments that are put forward in our essay may give rise to many questions but we will focus on two major issues. First, where does the law draw the line between the freedom of speech and the ban against discrimination based on a person's race, the colour of their skin or ethnic origin, confession of faith, or sexual preference? Second, are there inherit flaws in the law as a result of both the inner changes our society has gone through and our new responsibilities due to our membership in the EU and our acknowledgement of certain international conventions?</p><p>The purpose of this essay is to answer these questions through studying and reflecting on the theory of law (doctrine). We will also analyse the existing written law and its sources, and consider court rulings and related judicial decisions. This analysis will enable us to make the following conclusion concerning the previously mentioned questions.</p><p>The freedom of speech is extensive and is not explicitly defined. Without explicit definition, no specific statements automatically become illegal. Therefore a person's freedom to express his own opinion in public is wide-ranging. Unfortunately our freedom of speech is not guaranteed for ever and therefore we have to both treasure and guard it from potential threats. Popular public opinion, populist interests or other specific interests may seek changes, which might effect our freedom of speech. The ban against discrimination based on a person's race, the colour of their skin or ethnic origin, confession of faith, or sexual preference is a specific interest of this kind. The purpose of this ban is based solely on good intentions. None the less, this ban could be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as it might have a negative influence on the freedom of speech. When two justifiable causes come into conflict with one another – in this case the freedom of speech versus non-discrimination – a society must make difficult choices. Do we sacrifice part of our freedom of speech which will effect the whole population in order to protect minority groups, or do we sacrifice the rights of the minority in order to secure freedom of speech for all?</p><p>During the last few years there has been an increase in Nazi-organisations in Sweden, which have grown strong in terms of both the number of their supporters and the amount of attention which is paid to them by the press. These groups have used our democratic rights – which includes our freedom of speech – in order to spread their scornful opinions based on a person's race, the colour of their skin or ethnic origin, confession of faith, or sexual preference. Through our study of court rulings concerning Nazis, we came to the conclusion that there is a strong tendency to convict Nazis. This is certainly the case if they call out “Sieg Heil” or salute Hitler. They are also often convicted if they are wearing the Nazi cross.</p><p>When the courts find that they are unable to convict a Nazi for the actions just mentioned, they often base their judgement on either one or two premises. If the prosecutor can not prove that it has been the Nazi's intention to spread a scornful message concerning a group defined by it's race, the colour of their skin or ethnic origin, confession of faith, or sexual preference, he can not be convicted with reference to the non-discrimination act (uppsåtsrekvisitet). Moreover, if it can not be proven that the message has reached a considerable number of people and not just the Nazis private sphere, this also warrants the verdict of acquittal (spridningsrekvisitet). From our study of court rulings however, we found that the non-discrimination statute does fulfil its purpose. Most scornful or hate-filled messages are in fact disseminated to the wider public. This being the case, the Nazi is almost certain to be convicted.</p><p>Religious fundamentalism is not something entirely new in our society. Sweden has always had a few religious groups free from the state church and the members of the free churches have often held conservative religious beliefs, much like some Muslim movements today. Freedom of speech and religious freedom are of course two important elements of any democratic society, but through a court case concerning a Christian priest in a free church, the freedom of speech related to preaching has arguably become unacceptably extensive. In effect this court case means that as long as you can relate your scornful statement about a specific group included in the non-discrimination statute to a religious scripture like the Bible or the Koran, you can not be prosecuted.</p><p>This somewhat unsatisfactory conclusion is a result of Sweden adopting the European Convention of Human Rights. In this case the European Rights Law overrides the Swedish non-discrimination law and this leads to a flaw in our legal system relating to the protection of certain minority groups. It must be mentioned, however, that the European Convention of Human Rights is part of Swedish law, and therefore Swedish law can not contradict European law, RF 2:23. Given that we are bound by the European Rights Law, there is nothing Sweden can do about this flaw, which in the future might have even greater consequences in and on our multicultural society. For instance, what would happen if messages filled with hatred were spread by priests from the Christian free churches and fundamentalist Muslims. If these statements concerned the other group and the origin of the statements could be traced to the Bible and the Koran, the courts would have no way of convicting the preachers as this would go against the European Convention on Human Rights. This could result in serious social instability. Indeed, riots could break out as a result of such religious propaganda. The law would be powerless to halt the dissemination of the religious scorn which caused the riots.</p><p>We have come to three conclusions concerning intrinsic flaws in the law concerning the ban against discrimination based on a person's race, the colour of their skin or ethnic origin, confession of faith or sexual preference. We therefore recommend that the following changes should be made:</p><p>1. Concerning BrB 16:8, this act should include an unmistakable and transparent definition of the word “missaktning” (scornfulness or disrespect).</p><p>2. With reference to the High Court’s ruling regarding the priest and the European Convention on Human Rights, we recommend that Sweden should attempt to find a legal solution which will enable our courts to more easily convict scornful statements regarding certain minority groups, even if the origin of the statement can be traced to religious writings.</p><p>3. With reference to the instruction in the Freedom of Press Act (TF 1:4), we find it necessary to clarify which statements that can be looked upon as legal and which statements are unlawful.</p>

Abstract This essay begins with a presentation of the complex set of problems which relate to the interaction between freedom of speech and the ban against discrimination based on a person's race, the colour of their skin or ethnic origin, confession of faith or sexual preference (BrB 16:8, incitement to racial hatred). Can conflicts arise between freedom of speech and the ban against discrimination? To shed light on this question, we have chosen to look at the issue from a new perspective. This perspective is based on the new challenges faced by Swedish society as a result of the changed composition of our population, our membership in the EU and our acknowledgment of certain international conventions concerning human rights. Fifty years ago our population almost solely comprised of “native Swedes”. Today, because of massive immigration, our country can be described as multiracial and multicultural. This gives rise to questions concerning protecting minority groups from discrimination whilst also attempting to ensure that the non-discrimination acts do not compromise our freedom of speech. Our membership in the EU and our acknowledgement of certain international conventions means that European law and international law sometimes override Swedish law. This restricts our freedom to decide the extent of our non-discrimination statutes, but can have positive effects on the right to freedom of speech and religion. The arguments that are put forward in our essay may give rise to many questions but we will focus on two major issues. First, where does the law draw the line between the freedom of speech and the ban against discrimination based on a person's race, the colour of their skin or ethnic origin, confession of faith, or sexual preference? Second, are there inherit flaws in the law as a result of both the inner changes our society has gone through and our new responsibilities due to our membership in the EU and our acknowledgement of certain international conventions? The purpose of this essay is to answer these questions through studying and reflecting on the theory of law (doctrine). We will also analyse the existing written law and its sources, and consider court rulings and related judicial decisions. This analysis will enable us to make the following conclusion concerning the previously mentioned questions. The freedom of speech is extensive and is not explicitly defined. Without explicit definition, no specific statements automatically become illegal. Therefore a person's freedom to express his own opinion in public is wide-ranging. Unfortunately our freedom of speech is not guaranteed for ever and therefore we have to both treasure and guard it from potential threats. Popular public opinion, populist interests or other specific interests may seek changes, which might effect our freedom of speech. The ban against discrimination based on a person's race, the colour of their skin or ethnic origin, confession of faith, or sexual preference is a specific interest of this kind. The purpose of this ban is based solely on good intentions. None the less, this ban could be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as it might have a negative influence on the freedom of speech. When two justifiable causes come into conflict with one another – in this case the freedom of speech versus non-discrimination – a society must make difficult choices. Do we sacrifice part of our freedom of speech which will effect the whole population in order to protect minority groups, or do we sacrifice the rights of the minority in order to secure freedom of speech for all? During the last few years there has been an increase in Nazi-organisations in Sweden, which have grown strong in terms of both the number of their supporters and the amount of attention which is paid to them by the press. These groups have used our democratic rights – which includes our freedom of speech – in order to spread their scornful opinions based on a person's race, the colour of their skin or ethnic origin, confession of faith, or sexual preference. Through our study of court rulings concerning Nazis, we came to the conclusion that there is a strong tendency to convict Nazis. This is certainly the case if they call out “Sieg Heil” or salute Hitler. They are also often convicted if they are wearing the Nazi cross. When the courts find that they are unable to convict a Nazi for the actions just mentioned, they often base their judgement on either one or two premises. If the prosecutor can not prove that it has been the Nazi's intention to spread a scornful message concerning a group defined by it's race, the colour of their skin or ethnic origin, confession of faith, or sexual preference, he can not be convicted with reference to the non-discrimination act (uppsåtsrekvisitet). Moreover, if it can not be proven that the message has reached a considerable number of people and not just the Nazis private sphere, this also warrants the verdict of acquittal (spridningsrekvisitet). From our study of court rulings however, we found that the non-discrimination statute does fulfil its purpose. Most scornful or hate-filled messages are in fact disseminated to the wider public. This being the case, the Nazi is almost certain to be convicted. Religious fundamentalism is not something entirely new in our society. Sweden has always had a few religious groups free from the state church and the members of the free churches have often held conservative religious beliefs, much like some Muslim movements today. Freedom of speech and religious freedom are of course two important elements of any democratic society, but through a court case concerning a Christian priest in a free church, the freedom of speech related to preaching has arguably become unacceptably extensive. In effect this court case means that as long as you can relate your scornful statement about a specific group included in the non-discrimination statute to a religious scripture like the Bible or the Koran, you can not be prosecuted. This somewhat unsatisfactory conclusion is a result of Sweden adopting the European Convention of Human Rights. In this case the European Rights Law overrides the Swedish non-discrimination law and this leads to a flaw in our legal system relating to the protection of certain minority groups. It must be mentioned, however, that the European Convention of Human Rights is part of Swedish law, and therefore Swedish law can not contradict European law, RF 2:23. Given that we are bound by the European Rights Law, there is nothing Sweden can do about this flaw, which in the future might have even greater consequences in and on our multicultural society. For instance, what would happen if messages filled with hatred were spread by priests from the Christian free churches and fundamentalist Muslims. If these statements concerned the other group and the origin of the statements could be traced to the Bible and the Koran, the courts would have no way of convicting the preachers as this would go against the European Convention on Human Rights. This could result in serious social instability. Indeed, riots could break out as a result of such religious propaganda. The law would be powerless to halt the dissemination of the religious scorn which caused the riots. We have come to three conclusions concerning intrinsic flaws in the law concerning the ban against discrimination based on a person's race, the colour of their skin or ethnic origin, confession of faith or sexual preference. We therefore recommend that the following changes should be made: 1. Concerning BrB 16:8, this act should include an unmistakable and transparent definition of the word “missaktning” (scornfulness or disrespect). 2. With reference to the High Court’s ruling regarding the priest and the European Convention on Human Rights, we recommend that Sweden should attempt to find a legal solution which will enable our courts to more easily convict scornful statements regarding certain minority groups, even if the origin of the statement can be traced to religious writings. 3. With reference to the instruction in the Freedom of Press Act (TF 1:4), we find it necessary to clarify which statements that can be looked upon as legal and which statements are unlawful.

Den 1 januari 2003 infördes ”sexuell läggning” i lagen om hets mot folkgrupp. Den främsta anledningen till att ändringen genomfördes var p.g.a. den hetspropaganda som nynazister och andra högerextrema grupper riktade mot homosexuella som grupp. För att ett handlande skall bli straffbart skall ett uttalande eller annat meddelande som sprids hota eller uttrycka missaktning för en folkgrupp eller annan sådan grupp av personer med anspelning på bl.a. sexuell läggning. I samband med denna lagändring behövdes det i tryckfrihetsförordningen och yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen tilläggas ”sexuell läggning” i den s.k. brottskatalogen. Införandet av sexuell läggning i straffbestämmelsen innebär en inskränkning i yttrandefriheten som skyddas av tryckfrihetsförordningen och yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen samt Europakonventionen för de mänskliga fri- och rättigheterna. Regeringen ansåg att intresset att skydda homosexuella som grupp var ett ändamål som är tillåtet för inskränkningen. Regeringen anförde vidare att straffstadgandet inte hindrar en fri och saklig debatt och vederhäftig diskussion om homo- bi- och heterosexualitet i kyrkan eller andra områden i samhället. Vad gäller kyrkan och religionsfriheten är det inte straffbart att citera och diskutera t.ex. religiösa urkunder men däremot bör det inte vara tillåtet att genom religiösa texter hota eller uttrycka missaktning för homosexuella som grupp, lika lite som mot andra grupper. Ett omdiskuterat fall handlade just om uttalanden inom kyrkan som föll in under bestämmelsen hets mot folkgrupp med anspelning på sexuell läggning. Pastor Åke Green fälldes i tingsrätten, friades av hovrätten och Högsta domstolen. Den främsta anledningen till att han friades i Högsta domstolen var att hans uttalanden i det religiösa sammanhanget inte uttryckte en uppmuntran till eller ett rättfärdigande av hat mot homosexuella som grupp, ett s.k. ”hate speech”. Enligt svensk rätt hade han uttryckt missaktning för homosexuella som grupp men Europakonventionens religions- och yttrandefrihet tillät, i detta specifika fall, inte en sådan inskränkning som straffbestämmelsen utgör. I ett annat mål fälldes ett antal tilltalade i tingsrätten men friades av hovrätten. De tilltalade delade ut flygblad vars innehåll uttryckte missaktning för homosexuella som grupp. I flygbladet anförs att Nationell ungdom är upphovsman av uttalandena. Hovrätten anförde att deras agerande föll in under bestämmelsen hets mot folkgrupp men med anledning av domen mot Åke Green friades männen då innehållet i flygbladet inte uppmuntrade till eller rättfärdigade hat mot homosexuella som grupp. HD skall ta upp målet.