378 which meant that the scale of penalties stated in Chapter 9, Section 8, CLA would be applicable as regards both printed and verbal expressions. During the period of the emergence of democracy, the normal punishment for defamation of the Riksdag appears to have been imprisonment for 1-2 months which was comparatively low. For defamation of a foreign power, it appears that imprisonment for about three months was generally imposed. For defamation of the King, the Supreme Court imposed imprisonment for 7-9 months even after the minimumpunishment was reduced to imprisonment for one month. A person who spoke or wrote defamatorily of or, by a threat or other insulting act, abused a public servant or officer, in or for his service, could be punished with a fine or imprisonment. Generally, expressions of this kind were most likely to be punished withfines. The possession of special penal lawprotection by public office-holders resulted fromsuch persons both representing the royal sovereign and the fact that they were vulnerable to reprisals by reason of their official functions. Derogative points of view on the service performed by a public official could, if the expression was interpreted as a suggestion that the person had committed a breach of duty in officeunder Chapter 25 of the Criminal Law Act, constitute both defamation and false incrimination. InAugust 1909, a national strike broke out which has become known in Swedish history as the Great Strike. Consequently the autumn of 1909 was a troubled period during which many prosecutions were instituted in accordance with the penal provisions protecting the constitutional law system and those representing the system. In the following year, a social democratic member’s was presented by which it was proposed that the so-called Gagging Act against sedition should be repealed. Furthermore, it was proposed that the scale of penalties for defamation of the King which, according to the proponents of the motion was a barbaric remnant froman age where royal power was regarded as “pardoned by God”, should be made less stringent. The bill was rejected by both chambers. Today there are only two remnants of the offence of defamation of a foreign power, the King, the Riksdag and public officials. These are contained firstly in a provision of Chapter 5, Section 5 of the Penal Code, by which defamation of representatives of official authority or a foreign power is in certain cases subject to public prosecution and secondly, in a rule providing for a more severe penalty under Chapter 18, Section 2 of the Penal Code of 1965 concerning attacks against the King. Nowadays the aim of the offence of defamation is to protect personal integrity rather than subjective or objective honour. Objects such as foreign powers, the Riksdag, the sovereign power and the civil service are impersonal phenomena, the integrity of which appears difficult to violate. Thus, in my opinion, it is not surprising that such objects no longer enjoy any enhanced penal law protection. bill
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=