Written on 6 May 2025.

When Truth Becomes an Offense

In modern Sweden, a worrying pattern is emerging: laws and proposals meant to safeguard society are increasingly being used to restrain its most essential freedoms. The line between protecting public order and suppressing dissent is blurring, and at the heart of this lies a growing trend—treating truth-telling as a criminal act.

Swedish journalist Joakim Medin was recently convicted in a Turkish court for "insulting" President Erdogan and now faces additional charges. Turkey ranks 159th out of 180 in Reporters Without Borders' press freedom index, but disturbingly, the West is not immune to the same autocratic drift. The United States now ranks 57th, and even Sweden is backsliding.

The V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg documents a global wave of autocratization, and Sweden is no exception. New crimes like "foreign espionage," "aggravated foreign espionage," and "disclosure of secret information in international cooperation" have been added to Sweden's legal system. These laws, though perhaps introduced with good intentions, risk enabling state overreach.

Insulting Public Officials

Among the most concerning proposals is the criminalization of "insulting a public official." In practice, this law would make it punishable—potentially with up to six months in prison—to use language that a government employee deems disrespectful while performing their duties. While no one argues that public servants should tolerate threats, there already exist laws for unlawful threats, harassment, and defamation.

What this new offense threatens is the right to criticize authority. In a functioning democracy, power must withstand scrutiny, irritation, and even mockery. Journalists and ordinary citizens alike must be able to express dissatisfaction without the fear of being prosecuted for hurt feelings.

A Fraying Foundation

The concern goes beyond one law. A recent government inquiry proposes undermining Sweden's foundational freedom-of-expression laws by creating exceptions for certain types of data publication. Lexbase, a company that profits by making public court verdicts searchable online, is cited as a negative example. But rather than regulating such services with clear ethical standards, the proposal suggests opening a giant hole in the constitutional protections for freedom of the press.

Yes, publishing criminal records without context may be problematic. But the remedy should not be to give courts carte blanche to override press freedoms. If problematic platforms refuse to join Sweden's existing media ethics system, they can be required to create or join a parallel one—without demolishing the legal pillars that protect all journalistic work.

Surveillance in the Name of Safety

The proposed EU regulation "Chat Control," enthusiastically supported by the Swedish government, would monitor all digital communications and potentially force encrypted apps like Signal to create backdoors for law enforcement. This would effectively destroy source protection, a cornerstone of investigative journalism.

While preventing child abuse and gang violence are urgent goals, we must ask: at what cost? The chilling effect on free speech, activism, and press freedom would be immediate and irreversible.

From Protest to Terrorism

Another slippery slope involves the proposal by the Sweden Democrats to classify climate protests that disrupt infrastructure as acts of terrorism. While disruptive, such actions are still forms of civil disobedience. To label them as terrorism sets a precedent: any protest that displeases those in power could be criminalized as a threat to national security.

A Dangerous Narrative Shift

This wave of repression follows a familiar pattern. As Crona puts it:

A repressive state that wants to define reality for itself perceives truth as an insult and journalists as a threat to the order it wants to uphold.

The idea that the state can protect its narrative by legally silencing dissent is not new—but it is dangerous. The role of journalists is not to be cheerleaders for government policy but to ask hard questions and elevate voices that propose solutions without defaulting to censorship.

Surrendering to fear and control in the name of safety always ends in silence. When truth becomes an offense, freedom has already been lost.