Talk:Censorship in Sweden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Introduction[edit]

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![edit]

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

Do it yourself! // Liftarn

Film censorship[edit]

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. ^ [1]

Ake Green[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

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

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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[edit]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Censorship_in_Sweden&oldid=1200261392"