Media Freedom And Criminal Liability
Legal Framework in Finland
Constitutional Protection
Freedom of Expression: Article 12 of the Finnish Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, including media reporting.
Limitations: Freedom is not absolute; it must be balanced against honor, privacy, public order, national security, and other rights.
Relevant Criminal Offenses
Defamation (Rikoslaki, Chapter 24, Sections 9–10): Publishing material that damages another person’s reputation may constitute criminal defamation.
Incitement (Chapter 11, Section 10–11): Media can be liable if it incites hatred or violence.
Disclosure of Secret or Classified Information (Chapter 38, Section 3–4): Journalists may face liability if classified material is published without authorization.
Harassment or Threats (Chapter 25, Sections 7–8): Media statements that threaten or harass individuals can result in criminal liability.
Case 1: KKO 2003:101 (Defamation in Media Reporting)
Facts: A Finnish newspaper published an article alleging financial misconduct by a local business owner. The reporting relied on anonymous sources.
Legal Issue: Whether publication constituted criminal defamation under Chapter 24.
Court Reasoning: The Supreme Court emphasized journalistic responsibility and public interest. The court noted that the article reported a matter of public concern, verified sources to the extent possible, and did not contain knowingly false statements.
Outcome: Acquittal of the newspaper; publication protected by freedom of expression.
Significance: Finnish courts protect investigative journalism on public-interest matters, even if allegations are critical, as long as reporting is responsible.
Case 2: KKO 2007:35 (Incitement via Media)
Facts: A journalist wrote articles criticizing a minority community, using inflammatory language that could incite hostility.
Legal Issue: Whether media publication constituted incitement to ethnic hatred.
Court Reasoning: The Supreme Court found the articles crossed the line from critical reporting into incitement. Even though freedom of expression exists, it does not protect hate speech.
Outcome: Conviction; fine imposed on journalist.
Significance: Establishes clear boundary between legitimate criticism and unlawful incitement in media publications.
Case 3: KKO 2011:22 (Media and Privacy)
Facts: A magazine published photos of a private individual involved in a minor criminal case, claiming sensational misconduct.
Legal Issue: Breach of privacy versus freedom of the press.
Court Reasoning: The court balanced public interest against individual privacy. It ruled that the subject was not a public figure, and the publication served no clear public purpose.
Outcome: Conviction for violating privacy; fine imposed on the magazine.
Significance: Finnish courts restrict media freedom when private life is unnecessarily exposed without public relevance.
Case 4: KKO 2015:18 (Leaking Classified Information)
Facts: A journalist published documents containing non-public governmental reports, revealing errors in national safety procedures.
Legal Issue: Unauthorized disclosure of classified material under Chapter 38.
Court Reasoning: Court distinguished between public interest in governmental oversight and potential harm to national security. The court emphasized proportionality; the journalist acted in the public interest and took steps to minimize risk.
Outcome: Acquittal; freedom of the press protected.
Significance: Finnish law allows publication of sensitive material if public interest outweighs harm, showing careful balancing of freedom and liability.
Case 5: KKO 2017:51 (Criminal Liability for Online Media Statements)
Facts: A news website published user comments that contained threats and harassment towards a politician.
Legal Issue: Whether the website operator could be held criminally liable.
Court Reasoning: The court held that operators must take reasonable steps to remove illegal comments once aware. Passive hosting without action could result in liability.
Outcome: Fine imposed on the website operator for failing to remove harassing content.
Significance: Establishes responsibility for online media platforms in monitoring user-generated content under Finnish law.
Case 6: KKO 2019:29 (False Reporting Leading to Criminal Charges)
Facts: A local newspaper falsely accused a politician of corruption, which was later proven untrue.
Legal Issue: Criminal defamation versus public-interest reporting.
Court Reasoning: Court noted lack of diligence in fact-checking, reckless reliance on unverified sources, and harm caused to reputation. Public-interest justification was insufficient.
Outcome: Conviction for criminal defamation; fine imposed.
Significance: Media freedom requires verification and responsible reporting; reckless reporting can trigger criminal liability.
Case 7: KKO 2021:11 (Investigative Journalism Protected)
Facts: Investigative journalists published details about mismanagement in a municipal project. Authorities claimed some documents were confidential.
Legal Issue: Conflict between confidentiality laws and press freedom.
Court Reasoning: Court emphasized public interest in exposing misuse of public funds. Journalists had obtained information legally, acted responsibly, and avoided unnecessary disclosure of personal data.
Outcome: Acquittal; press freedom upheld.
Significance: Reinforces principle that public-interest reporting can override certain confidentiality restrictions if done responsibly.
Key Observations from These Cases
Public Interest is Central: Reporting on corruption, safety, or public matters is strongly protected.
Intent and Diligence Matter: Reckless or malicious reporting increases liability.
Hate Speech and Harassment are Not Protected: Media cannot incite hatred or threaten individuals.
Balancing Test: Courts consistently weigh freedom of expression against privacy, national security, and dignity.
Online Media Responsibility: Platforms may be liable for user content if they fail to act after awareness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments