Hats, caps, and freedom of the press
source: Stanford digital https://tinyurl.com/2xej2hb7
Back in 1766, while American colonists were grumbling over the British proclivity for passing laws that abridged their freedom, a similar kind of protest was forming over the Atlantic. In Sweden, three political groupings were having it out – the hats (hattar), the caps (mössor), and the king.
Brimmed and unbrimmed
The king had a weak position during this period, and the real power had been held by the hats – hats with brims – for some time. Two lost wars and a shaky economic situation later, a change came. In 1765, many members of the caps group – the unbrimmed hats – were voted in.
With them came many changes: Censorship was largely abolished; a closer relationship with Britain, as opposed to France, was espoused; the public could access government papers and print as much of it as they wanted (classified documents exempted); and any official who denied such access could be punished. Freedom of the press was born, and even the seeds of the Swedish principle of public access, as well as the Fundamental Law of Freedom of Expression, were sown.
Change
With such a history, it’s no wonder that changing the laws for freedom of the press and freedom of expression has caused an uproar. Changing any part of Sweden’s four fundamental laws requires two parliamentary votes, one on either side of an election. Changes to these laws are meant to be difficult. Yet, such a change has now occurred.
A few days ago, a second vote inserted a clause in Sweden’s fundamental law that criminalizes disclosure of classified information that damages Sweden’s relationship with foreign powers or organizations. The new law’s detractors fear that a journalist can now be charged if, say, they see some misconduct by another state’s or organization’s representative and report on it, thereby damaging Sweden’s relationship with that country or organization.
The new law’s defenders, including the Moderate, Social Democratic, Center, Christian Democrat and Sweden Democrat parties, point to the so-called safety valve. This says that it will not be illegal to disclose damaging information if it’s “justifiable.” What constitutes “justifiable” is not specified, however.
See something say something
A worry is that journalists may in the future decide not to investigate or publish a story if they risk serious jail time. In its coverage of the new law, the newspaper DN listed several instances in which Swedish journalists have irritated other countries – stories that might not have been reported on if the new law had been in place at the time. These examples included information regarding a formation of an EU military unit, the behavior of EU soldiers on missions abroad, on Sweden’s efforts to sell its jet fighter Gripen to Switzerland, and on the conditions facing Swedish soldiers in Mali.
Back in the 1770s, the caps’ changes were short-lived. Only a few years later, King Gustav III disbanded parliament and eroded the press’ freedom until there was nothing left. His son Gustav IV reestablished official censure. However, this didn’t last either – freedom of the press, and by extension of expression, was back in the fundamental law by 1809. Some freedoms are irrepressible.
