379 6. Restrictions on the freedom of expression which affected industrial dispute measures in the labour market The traditional weapon in the armoury of the socialist trade union organizations, boycott and strike, presupposed loyalty and common action within the social group. The publication of information about supposed disloyal behaviour was consequently often constituted an indispensable element of the trade union organization’s battle strategy. Employers also probably had a certain need to act in unison. However, as a result of the limited number of employers, it was possible to implement measures such as lockout and so-called black listing without communicating information publicly. In 1899, a new itemwas added to the provisions concerning unlawful coercion under Chapter 15, Section 22, CLA. By this new item, attempts to coerce someone by violence or threat to participate in a withdrawal of labour or to prevent another person from either returning to work or taking over work offered was criminalized. The Supreme Court established in several judgments that information that someone should be regarded as a strike-breaker was not normally a threat of such a nature that criminal responsibility would exist under the so-called Åkarp Act (Åkarpslagen) of 1899 which dealt withattempt to coerce. In 1908, a private member’s bill was presented by which it was proposed that announcements in newspapers comprising trade union harassment of strike breakers should be prevented by an extension of the defamation offences under the FPA. However, the legislative proposal was rejected by the Second Chamber of the Riksdag. There was never any legislation introduced in Sweden specifically aimed at limiting the freedom of expression of trade union organizations. The types of crime which came to have a bearing on the trade union organization’s opportunity to publish information were the offences of defamation and disorderly conduct. The latter crime was considered, under certain circumstances, to comprise proclamations in public places of expression such as, “Down with the strike breakers!”. In a case from1913, the Supreme Court sentenced a person who had signed and in a public place permitted the display of three placards, upon which strike breakers were pointed out by name as, inter alia, traitors to their class comrades, for both unlawful insult and disorderly conduct.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=