Talk:Censorship in Sweden: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:36, 13 February 2023

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Sweden C‑class Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Freedom of speech C‑class Mid‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Introduction

I am going to change "Sweden strongly protects freedom of speech and was a pioneer in officially abolishing censorship. A small number of restrictions remain." Because it's wrong and gives a wrong impression of sweden. For instance has their hate crime law been extended to include homosexuality. With their hate crime law where they have sent people to prison for stating mild comments about homosexuality, I will argue that Sweden is certinally not a pioneer in freedom of speech. To make matters even worse, the law doesn't apply equally, for instance pretty much anything can be said against jews without getting punished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.243.98 (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It already mentions that "A small number of restrictions remain." so it already covered. // Liftarn (talk)

But it still give the wrong impression. With the kind of restrictions there is on free speech, then Sweden can't be called a pioneer or a strong defender, and also it gives the impression that Sweden has continously improved, when this is not the case. Your change still doesn't address these problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.243.98 (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it gives the right impression. Freedom of speech has actually continuously improved. It is now-days OK with blasphemy or to say bad things about the king. Most countries have rules about hate speech so Sweden is no exception. // Liftarn (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could get something here about the philosophical underpinnings of both the basic free speech position and the current exceptions. Where can I find out why the current exceptions exist? -- SpareSimian (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proofread!

Proofread please. This is a mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.134.177 (talk • contribs)

Do it yourself! // Liftarn

Film censorship

Maybe someone could add that the last film to get censored was Casino in 1995. http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1058&a=684082 (Swedish)

I had removed a few inaccuracies which Isarig restored. This is the fragment:

"Some movies have been banned entirely and are not available for viewing. The list of the films banned includes Nosferatu (banned for excessive horror), Mad Max, Martin Scorsese's Casino and Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation^[1]."

Of all these movies, only Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Madmax from 1979 seems to have been banned, which is also where the source leads to. The other movies are not banned! Casino is not banned! It is The Casino from 1972 which is banned. See here. Nosferatu is not banned. Moreover, I will say that the movies are released on DVD and in the past, they were released on VHS. Anyway, all of this is ridiculous, much like the whole of Sweden's moral perspective on things and their stupid laws. Luckly, I've moved to Denmark, a country inhabited by humans, for humans. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, Nosferatu was banned as well. If it is the wrong Casino movie which is linked, feel free to correct it. Isarig 19:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the decission was overturned, because according to their official site, the movie is not banned. As for Casino, it should be removed altogether, because the one that is banned is just some B-movie that no-one would know about. Here is the complete list on IMDB, but I don't know how accurate it may be. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to the Nosferatu offical site? I'll reove the Casino entry, because that does not appear to be sourced. Isarig 19:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Nosferatu's official site, but Statens Biografbirå's official site. They are the idiots that decide these things. The page is located here. Notice that it says that it has an age limit set at 15, compared to the Texas Massacre where it says that it's förbjuden. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes - but this is for the 1979 Remake, not the 1922 original. Isarig 20:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well, strange that the original one is not included. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The movie censorship is for moves showed in cinemas. There is no censorship (apars from things like pedophilia, bastiality and such) for home videos. // Liftarn

Yep, I'm aware of that, but still. They should mind their own business and only censor such things as the ones you have mentioned above. In my opinion, Sweden is a conservative-feminist society. That will also be its downfall, unless those leftie girls are removed from power. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]

Ake Green

Why is there no mention of him? Deplorable as the contents of his speech may have been, he should have been mentioned as an example of continuing censorship in Sweden - in this case, it's hate speech laws. Whether hate speech laws are good or bad is irrelevant: They ARE censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.230.67 (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are not. Hate speech in Sweden is something you can be sentenced for after you have done it. Censorship is when it is stopped before. // Liftarn (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think it matters that Åke Green was acquitted. 130.243.175.43 (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Parliamentary Election

An anonymous IP have twiced entered irrelevant and unsourced material in the article.[2][3] It is simple soapboxing (WP:SOAPBOX) and it has nothing to do with censorship in Sweden. It claims "Swedish media censors their adds and refuse them equal access to election debates.". This may refer to that TV4 (Sweden) did not want to air their commercial due to the racist content. As TV4 is a private company it is not a question of censorship and does not belong in this article. // Liftarn (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although TV4 is a private company their action was based of fear of legal prosecution by the authorities. The action has later been endorsed by the ruling Swedish parties. The action constitutes censorship (forced self-censorship). 113.190.128.156 (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still has nothing to do with censorship. Having laws against hate speech is another issue. // Liftarn (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laws on hate speech are invoked after the statement. Censorship preceeds it. The video that was removed was not even by a stretch racist (e.g. Der Spiegel uses citation marks for the word "racist"). Thank you for adding the requests for references. I will try to find English language sources 113.190.128.156 (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so having laws against hate speech is not a form of censorship so it still has nothing to do with censorship. That a private company rejects an ad it not censorship. // Liftarn (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not checking my language. I ment "the video that was refused" (before being showed).113.190.128.156 (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but by TV4, not by the government so it was a business decision, not censorship. For instance Dagen (Swedish newspaper) refused an ad for some gay event. That is not censorship either. // Liftarn (talk)

TV4 used the justification that they might be prosecuted under Sweden's hate speech laws. As the justification was later endorsed by the Swedish Government, I assume the fear was real. This although the content of the add can not by international standards be considered "hate speech" (e.g. the Der Spiegel reference). In normal democracies the media has an obligation to help the public make informed decisions and are supported in this by the law and the Government. It would seem that in Sweden the current legislation allows a repressive Government to force self-censorship on the media. This deserves to be mentioned in Wikipedia. Especially as Sweden is usually lecturing other countries on these issues (democracy & censorship). 113.190.128.156 (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what I wrote above, I have to note that your comparison to "some gay event" is lacking. An election campaign for Parliament is something different and politically far more important.113.190.128.156 (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your theory about "fear" seem to be entirely your own speculation. And as mention above having laws against hate speech is not a form of censorship. // Liftarn (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV4's decision was obviously a form a censorship, but the rest is mostly just SD rhetoric. I made a rather bold rewrite of the text that doesn't portray the whole affair as something which received widespread criticism. It might need further pruning and it's possible that a lot of it doesn't deserve to be in the article at all, but at least now it doesn't seem as blatantly pro-SD as it was before.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The concert poster in Linköping

I removed a section about a certain poster in Linköping in 2008, which was later reverted. My point is that this is a case of recentism which we would never have mentioned had it happened in 1840s, 1920s, 1970s ... or pretty much at any point when we weren't reading about it in the newspapers. It doesn't illustrate any certain point, it's not really connected to anything, it's just one individual data point of one municipality. The fact that the editor of a local newspaper recieved threats after publishing said poster (which the editor reverting my edit saw as relevant discussion of censorship) isn't really that uncommon, and even if it were, death threats from the general public is an ugly thing, but not censorship. Like any country that has been around for a while, Sweden has a long history of censorship. If we are to mention each case like this, this article is going to be potentially hundreds of pages, possibly thousands of pages, long. This should give an overview of how censorship works in Sweden, and has worked historically. The fact that one municipality (not the state of Sweden) decided once to remove a poster for a concert does not qualify. /Julle (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has protested so far, I'll remove said paragraph. /Julle (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partially agree. It's an interesting example of religious based censorship. // Liftarn (talk)

If it is, then it should be mentioned in a bigger context, in a part about religiously based censorship to illustrate it. Standing on it's own, it doesn't say anything at all, really. /Julle (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of Swedish censorship

Here's a link to a YouTube with a cartoon that shows insidious Swedish censorship: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0rBeoOiV1c&feature=youtube_gdata_player The entire last section when Donald uses a machine gun has never been shown in Sweden. I'd imagine if you'd "edit" other art, and dumb it down, the Swedes would be upset. There are many other cartoons that have been cut to "suit" what Swedish censors will permit.

Same with print - reference Herge and his Tintin stories that had to be "cleaned up" for Sweden.

No, Swedish censorship is pervasive, it's just that the Swedes are oblivious after so many years of being treated like children.

Thomas (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do note that the talk page's sole function is to help make the article better, and not a forum for discussion about Swedish censorship in general. If you've got suggestions for how to improve the article to better show how Swedish censorship works (or has worked historically), please do communicate those. /Julle (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual assaults by people with migration backgrounds

The section I wrote was removed^[1] under the explanation that 'This part is not regarding censorship in Sweden. It can be assumed that it is based on the authors own opinions'

First of all the definition of censorship according to the relevant Wikipedia entry is: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

The We Are Sthlm sexual assaults attempted cover-up fits this definition as both the Swedish police and the newspaper Dagens Nyheter suppressed information even though they had knowledge of the facts.

Secondly, I have only written factual statement with sources, so the 'assumption' that it was based on my 'own opinions' is total bogus.

Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The incident definitely deserves a place in the article, but surely you understand why someone objected to the way you presented it. I have now changed the title of the section to make it fit the rest of the article better, and cleaned up the last bit about "buried" which was definitely opinion and has been refuted by DN. 90.226.135.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, totally agree with your edits. I just added the last reference back, not sure if you left it out on purpose, but it supports the last sentence.

Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, nah not on purpose just know nothing about editing wikipedia haha. My first thought was to nuke it as well simply due to the sort of nudge-nudge way it was presented, but then I realized being an adult and try to fix it might be somewhat more productive. 90.226.135.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish media, like all media, has always had a whole bunch of areas in which they are more reluctant to write. Whether this is one of them has been debated – certainly, a number of Swedish journalists have claimed this to be the case. However, if we're to write about everything where the Swedish media could potentially be accused of self-censorhip, this article would no longer be an encyclopedic article, it would be a book. Giving this particular item so much space – space at all – is, in my opinion, an example of recentism, and doesn't fit here. This text is not about self-censorship. It's an article to give a basic overview of how censorhip in Sweden has worked from a historical perspective, and works today. This isn't the right place for entire paragraphs about certain issues about which Swedish journalists might have been reluctant to report for a (in the perspective of this article) short period of time in the 2010s. /Julle (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, since no one had replied here – the article isn't about self-censorship, and if we're to mention everything topic the Swedish media has avoided writing about during the period covered by this article, this will be a book-length text. /Julle (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censorship_in_Sweden&diff=701997706&oldid=653311766

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Censorship in Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Censorship in Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111133033/http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/09/18/177a98a8.pdf to http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/09/18/177a98a8.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serious vandalism of article

Amitlevy49 (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC) For over a month an unregistered user changed the article, switching all "yes" to "no", and adding a description of a current ongoing genocide in Sweden with no sources. I myself am not Swedish, but I doubt there is a current genocide going on in Sweden, and so I assume this was vandalism that was somehow ignored for an entire month.[reply]

I urge anybody reading with sufficient permissions to please protect the page.

Political censorship, right-wing thought

As I am Swedish, (not ethnically, as my parents birthed & raised me here, but they themselves weren't born there, which is extremely emphasized here, & being a child of immigrants is for some reason still considered to be an immigrant, even after you get a child yourself), my message here is first-hand & would reasonably stand as a first-hand source on its own, more so than your news & articles, though since this is also factual, nationality has no importance: political censorship is a regular on all conservative thought, & the Swedish definition of conservative is different & far more left-leaning at that, so you can think of it as center-right or a leftist with a statement leaning right by a scale of 0.01 out of 10.

Conservative, right-wing (by America's definition, like DeSantis' politics or Jordan Peterson) is not just unpopular but not allowed, at the moment, as its an entirely socialist system, with socialist political parties, & therefore socialism & no capitalist thought humored. Beyond that, American politicians, if not activist, are mocked & despised. Because of that, what many classify as hate speech is much less serious than what the rest of the world classifies as hate speech (which would be incitement to violence, &c). Fines are centered on offense, & political dissidence, not any actual hate speech, neither any racism. It is fully anti-conservative and American conservatism is fully censored. Thoughts centering expedition of criminals, especially foreign-born criminals commiting crimes, are unpopular & disliked. When I say foreign-born criminal, think of it as a euphemism of a literal member of ISIS devoted to terrorism, ready to come, rape/bomb a place, or any other sort of criminal who has come because of the low punishment for crime, & do not get punished. My seniors haven't even heard of the notion of expedition, believe it to have never occured, & dislike the notion. At school no one heard of it as well.

Some context: Despite the high immigration, Swedes are very isolated up there, being above the 70th parallel as a subarctic country, & are as cold & unwelcoming to strangers as the weather. Foreign ideas, like racism, they do not like, as in the millenias of the country's development they barely saw any other ethnicity, so they have a low concept of what other cultures actually are & don't like such thought. Because of that, anti-immigration isn't something they like, & sticking out isn't something they like. The culture is summarized by the Law of Jante, which are old, Swedish principles; don't stick out, don't think you're special, don't come here thinking you're somebody.

The idea that people are different, isn't liked. Everyone is termed "special," which is what used to be a euphemism for a handicapp, but is used for everything. Children have always been spoiled, more so than Millennial Americans, & they all despise simply varied or diverse thought, unless if it's about racial & sexual diversity: then they love it & want everyone to be gay & to act like a minority. Political conformity is cultural, & as I've said, cultural principles. The people there are usually loud about what the majority feel (a new culture imported from activist culture), quiet & censoring of what the non-majority feel, which is both part of their cultural principles, & the new activist culture. Femimist eco-activism is what they like. & unlike America, there is no Republican party: Everyone has to fully CONFORM to the the same eco-activist thought, socialism is innate & not allowed to be argued, there are mostly entirely eco-feminist political parties (except for traditionally nationalist ones, like the SDs & Ms) & the feminist eco-activists are loudest. they care more about women than men, as there isn't any sign of men holding much cultural power there, except for in building & working, which Swedes think is something women do either equally or better, though a superiority complex is innate. This is why right-wing groups have been gaining a rise, why the Ms switched to center-right/left-but-still-leaning right (swedish version of right-wing) though unfortunately it's the old antisemite SD group gaining popularity, not the Ms or a new right-wing group: think of it like the American Democrat party in the 1800s, but a tiny change in that it used to be Nazi-allied, but just like slavery in the 1800s by the Democrats, people overlook the fully nationalsocialist SD in the 1940s, now minorly skinhead, but they have been culturally accepted & are more liked than what many view as the eco-fascist Climate Party, so the support for SD has skyrocketed to ⅕ of the population (it's usually inefficiently split between every party). However, many just hope for a change, any kind of new expression, so they don't care how messed up some parties are, they still vote for the same conformity-inducing parties, whether center-right or center-left, or nationalist.

But when marxist feminist eco-activism is the only accepted thought mode, most thought processes are not accepted. In school they told us men were patriarchs, 2 angry women have scolded me before for 1 ideological reason of me being "a patriarch," & I was simply NOT ALLLOWED to complain, as it was CULTURALLY not accepted. So that same censorship, that is anti-Marxist, or anything they accuse of being racist or non-feminist, because istaphobics are especially popular (as dissent is unpopular, they can say anything & unlike America, there is no complaining if you get treated in a radical, hyperpolitical way, even if it's less extreme than in America), and anything non-conformative that you say, is not accepted, as, again, the Swedes have sayings, that are disturbingly similair to cult repititions, of whenever something is said. They always repeat "remember the Law of Jante," every single one you talk to, & they always say "lagom is bra – that means balance is good" & the people there are depressingly conforming, &c. I only noticed when I saw foreign Youtube comments, & then I visited America & it was the strangest thing I've ever seen. People were openly affectionate, hugging, others were loud, boisterous of being either conservative or liberal, proud of what they felt, & you were allowed to say almost anything. Imagine being allowed to say you're left or right, all the normal things. To complain & say something when the other side does something insane, even if conformity is only RECENTLY on the rise. Now that doesn't happen in Sweden, & so I want you foreigners to imagine the opposite to understand Swedish culture: activist conformity has always been part of the culture for centuries, socialism is the only accepted thought, Radical political revolution has been accepted for centuries, since the Swedish worker's revolutions that happened in the 1800s, up until now. & the istaphobics, or the reprehension to say how you feel, & the self-censorship when speaking: that is how it has culturally been in Swedish, long before Jante, & these principles are easily summarized as: shut up, don't speak, if you do you're ostracized, & be a center-oriented socialist, being too left or too right is not allowed socially, culturally, & neither in Swedish media: that's why I usually use American media, because then It's more open & opinion is varied, & that's how censorship happens in Sweden: it's political & right-wing is never an option. So yes, if u write anything conservative, it's deleted by any organization that can quickly do so. Especially as a minor – the government has full authority over your life, & if u say anything they don't like, you will be "re-educated" & ripped from your family. & I've personally experienced it from "socialtjänsten," whom are in charge of such matters. "Sluggish psychosis" is an unofficial term they sometimes use, which is the same thing as sluggish schizophrenia. & you're ridiculously quickly diagnosed/labeled with homosexuality & ADHD, even if you are neither, which I am not, yet both labels have in fact been forcefully pushed on me hundreds of times, & my "psychiatrist" outright told me I have the option of either accepting ADHD as my diagnosis, or get labeled as having sluggish psychosis & sent away. I'm a traditional right wing bearded Christian man, so I don't have to explain more that it was forceful & not who I am. I do not have ADHD, I am not homosexual, yet I've been branded as both because you have to be "quirky." So, just being non-LGBT is frowned upon if a minority (I am), being anti-LGBT is not accepted & immediately censored, & anything right wing, & the response u get is re-education, removal of all comments, &c &c. Censorship is part of the culture, especially when activism is now the new thing. Mike0000000 (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [1]

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censorship_in_Sweden&diff=701997706&oldid=653311766

[1]

[1]