This paper examines how notifies security looks for private employed workers in jobs founded by the public. The aim is to clarify the legal situation surrounding notifies law, and to analyze possible shortcomings in the law with a focus on the future. Notifies law is based on five cornerstones. Where freedom of information, a right to provide information to the media for publication, “acquires the right” and protection to be anonymous when talking to the press goes to all workers. The other two pillars, “a look up prohibitions” and “retaliatory forbid” apply only to employees in the public sector. Workers in the public sector has a stronger protection in a inform situation then a privately employed worker has. Differences in announces protection can be problematic when the former traditional public services such as schools, health care and care is conducted in private. Employees in these sectors with a history of strong protection as they provided information to the media, no longer have the same protection with a private employer. This despite the fact that they have the same work activities, are carried out with the same public funds and the importance of transparency and protecting the interests, ought to exist. The work addresses the policy tools that affect notifies law. The essay examines include committee directives, reports, legislation and social change. It is the individual perspective that characterizes the investigation. Individual perspective is broadened by a social, historical, international and gender perspective. The study divides the legal differences in announces security between different groups of workers in a legal and in a perceived part. There are legal differences that depend on the employer, the employee has. When the employee is not aware of the differences, instead you can talk about the perceived legal protection. Furthermore, the essay takes up the gender dimension of health, education and care is dominated by women. This affects women as a group due to the structural changes in the labor market, leading to impaired announces protection for those who move to private employers. The work concludes that the law surrounding announces security is difficult to take in and to form an opinion about. Notifies court extends across different areas, and in some sectors, there is special legislation. The paper calls for a comprehensive legislation, making notifies law more transparent and easier to absorb for workers as well as managers and employers. It is desirable that such legislation should include all workers, regardless of employer. Keywords: Freedom of expression, freedom of information, announces protection, job security, open government. / Denna uppsats undersöker hur meddelartryggheten ser ut för arbetstagare inom verksamheter som bedrivs i privat regi med offentliga medel. Syftet är att klargöra rättsläget kring meddelarrätt, samt att analysera eventuella brister i lagstiftningen med fokus på framtiden.  Meddelarrätten är uppbyggd kring fem hörnstenar. Där meddelarfrihet, som är en rätt att lämna uppgifter till massmedier för publicering, anskaffarfrihet och anonymitetsskydd tillfaller alla arbetstagare. De två andra hörnstenarna, eftersökningsförbud och repressalieförbud gäller endast anställda i offentlig verksamhet. Arbetstagare inom offentlig verksamhet har således ett starkare skydd vid en meddelarsituation är vad en privatanställd arbetstagare har. Skillnader i meddelarskydd kan bli problematisk när tidigare traditionella offentliga verksamheter såsom skola, vård och omsorg bedrivs i privat regi. Anställda inom dessa sektorer som tidigare haft ett starkt skydd när de lämnat uppgifter till massmedier, har inte längre det med en privat arbetsgivare. Detta trots att de har samma arbetsuppgifter, verksamheten bedrivs med samma offentliga medel och samma vikt av insyn och skyddsvärda intressen borde föreligga.    Arbetet tar upp de politiska verktyg som påverkar meddelarrättens område. Uppsatsen undersöker bland annat kommittédirektiv, utredningar, lagstiftning och andra samhällsförändringar. Det är individens perspektiv som präglar undersökningen. Individperspektivet breddas med hjälp av ett samhälls-, historiskt-, internationellt- och genusperspektiv. Undersökningen delar upp de rättsliga skillnaderna i meddelartrygghet mellan olika arbetstagargrupper i en rättslig del och i en upplevd del. Det finns juridiska skillnader som är beroende av vilken arbetsgivare arbetstagaren har. När arbetstagaren inte är medveten om skillnaderna, kan man istället tala om det upplevda rättsskyddet. Vidare tar uppsatsen upp genusaspekten av att vård, skola och omsorg är kvinnodominerade yrken. Därmed påverkas kvinnor som grupp av de strukturella förändringarna på arbetsmarknaden som leder till försämrat meddelarskydd för de som övergår till privata arbetsgivare. Arbetet konstaterar att juridiken kring meddelartryggheten är svår att ta in och bilda sig en uppfattning om. Meddelarrätten sträcker sig över olika områden, och inom vissa branscher finns det speciallagstiftning. Uppsatsen efterlyser en samlad lagstiftning som gör meddelarrätten mer överskådlig och lättare att ta till sig för arbetstagare såväl som för chefer och arbetsgivare. Det är eftersträvansvärt att en sådan lagstiftning ska inkludera alla arbetstagare, oberoende av arbetsgivare. Vidare behöver lagstiftarna säkerställa att kunskap om meddelarrätt, särskilt eftersökningsförbudet sprids och efterföljs.       Nyckelord: Yttrandefrihet, meddelarfrihet, meddelarskydd, anställningstrygghet, offentlighetsprincipen.

In this paper, the legal situation regarding freedom of expression versus the duty of loyalty is investigated, this in a context where an employee makes critical statements about his employer through social media. The duty of loyalty is a part of all employment relationships and it follows implicit from the contract regardless of whether it is specified in it or not. This duty means that an employee is required to put the employer's interests before his own and avoid all situations that end up in collision of the duties. The employee may no t either act in such a way that is intended to harm the employer. This means that the employee must be even off duty careful not to appear disloyal to the employer. This may lead to that a status update on Facebook, even when made on the employee's free time, can be regarded as disloyal conduct, with the dismissal or disciplinary action as a result. Case law states that the point of departure regarding criticizing the employer must be that the employee has an extensive such a possibility to that, without that being considered as disloyal conduct. However, statements that are intended to harm the employer are considered to be disloyal conduct. Concerning the constitutionally protected freedom of expression, only those who are public employees are protected by it. This protection allows them to extensively discuss and criticize their employers. In the public sector the freedom of speech comes before the duty of loyalty. So is not the case for the employees in the private sector, since they do not enjoy the protection which the Constitution gives. The fact that an employee chooses to express his dissatisfaction through social media is not one of the valuation parameters when the Labour Court decides whether the critical statement constitutes an objective ground for dismissal. However, one can see that such a process contributes to a wider dissemination of the statement. And it can be discussed if the employee’s purpose with a Facebook comment is really to deal with grievances in the workplace.

Abstract Sweden has had a long tradition of freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Today the judicial area is regulated by the constitution of the press and the constitution of speech. The purpose of the two constitutions is to secure the right for every Swedish citizen to express their thoughts, opinions and feelings. The constitutions are designed to regulate the techniques with which the information is distributed and not to regulate the information in itself. This fact has caused a debate to arise on the subject whether the constitutions are still suitable to regulate the judicial area when the technical development causes the constitutions to get out of date and in need of constant updating. As a rule the usage of social media is not regulated by the constitution of speech the information distributed through these webpages can be included by the protection given by the constitution but very few of these webpages fulfill the criteria’s demanded by the constitution. The purpose of this essay is to ask the question whether the constitution of speech should be reformed to better regulate the technical development in the future. The essay examines whether a new constitution can be developed so that it no longer is tied to a certain technique and if it, in the future, should include all the information distributed through social media. It is the author´s conclusion that the constitution of freedom of speech should be concentrated on giving a special protection to professional companies’ whose occupation it is to distribute information to the public. This is the best way to preserve a regulation that is clear, consistent and easy to practice. A constitution that is given an area that is too wide to regulate will only restrain the freedom of speech and its founding principles and should therefore be avoided.