375 allies of the Section constituted a signal to the police and the courts that sedition constituted criminality of a serious nature. During the years 1906 to 1921, the Supreme Court considered 28 prosecutions for sedition. Most of these cases concerned anti-military propaganda. However, it is not possible by an analysis of the administration of justice by the Supreme Court to determine how an expression concerning refusal to do compulsory military service should have been worded in order to be permissible. The basis of which factors determined penal culpability for sedition also seems to have been unclear. The most severe penalty which was imposed by the Supreme Court under the Sedition Act during the period of the emergence of democracy was, however, a sentence of penal labour for eight months. The tougher scale of penalties adopted in 1906 was thus applied rather restrictively. The penal provisions against sedition are contained in currently applicable Swedish criminal law in Chapter 16, Section 5 of the Swedish Penal Code of 1965. Corresponding provisions were contained in the Freedom of the Press Act of 1949 in the provisions of Chapter 7, Section 4, point 10. After the extensions of 1906 and 1909, fewamendments to the sedition legislation have been adopted. However, under the influence of left-wing activismprevalent at the end of the 1960s, petty cases of sedition were decriminalized in 1970. Petty cases of sedition, should according to the travauxpréparatoires of the amendments to the legislation be considered to exist, inter alia, only when there was a not insignificant danger that an expression of views would result in consequences or the matter was of a nature known as ‘conflict of interest cases.’ Conflict of interest cases meant statements which were of a kind that the freedomof speech should carry more weight than the interest of society concerning the commission of crimes and acts comparable therewith. 3. Disorderly conduct Chapter 11, Section 15, CLAlaid down a fine of at most 100 kronor for the offence of disorderly conduct, a crime which could be committed by any kind of act disturbing the public peace. Peace and order may be disturbed both by loud voices and by impeding access as well as by the public proclamation of provocative and deviant views. The penal provisions against disorderly conduct were consequently sometimes used to protect political correctness. Examples of behaviour found punishable under Chapter 11, Section 15, CLA were the carrying of a banner with the text “Down with the throne, the altar and the money bag” and exclamations of “Long live the Republic!”. The FPA did not contain any provision which could in the same way as disorderly conduct function as a subsidiary offence restricting freedom of expression. In 1910, it was stated in a social democratic private member’s bill that the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=