|
Helsinki Edition
October 1998
About Us
Index
News
Features
Focus: Europe
Columns
Letters to the Editor
Editorial
Links
Archive |
Who's got the power of the public debate?
The birth of the Internet brought claims of the democratic potential of the new medium. Its transnational and decentralized nature would empower ordinary citizens all over the world. They would have infinite access to digital information leading to educated citizens in the new global era and the debate would be free and not limited by national borders.
But a new law in Sweden, PUL, regulating the use of personal data according to the European Union's data computer directive, puts the future scenario on hold. In practise it's a limitation of the freedom of expression on the Internet for ordinary citizens.
"The new regulation means that if you want to put personal views containing personal data, a name for instance, on the Internet you need the approval of the person concerned", explains Roger Petersson of Sweden´s Department of Justice.
In practise you have to ask for the approval of the minister before you criticize him on your homepage or in a discussion group. Public documents can not be uploaded onto the web if they contain the name of the people who made the decision. Result: a public debate with no names...if the law is followed.
But exceptions have been made for journalistic, artistic and literary purpose.
"This is not a problem for the journalists. We can go on as before", says Trond Sefastsson, Swedish expert on media law.
But it will be a limitation for ordinary men and women on the street. A limitation of their freedom of expression in the name of personal integrity. The European Commission is warning that the Internet has criminal potential. Delicate information might get into the wrong hands.
"There are serious problems that must be dealt with", says Swedish journalist Christoph Andersson. "But what are the chances that a criminal will be using servers where the authorities can trace him? Instead it´s the ordinary Internet users right to freedom of expression that will be restricted".
Barbro Hietala Nordlund (social democrat) voted for the law but she admits that it is already a bit out-of date:
"During the debate in Parliament we almost didn't discuss the Internet at all. But I'm still in favour of the law. Balancing between personal integrety and openness is always difficult. Our main task was to adopt to the EU directive and the changes were needed".
But Fredrik Laurin, another Swedish journalist, critizises the strategy chosen by the Swedish government. The law is strengthening the personal integrity in general instead of pointing out specific problems and forming solutions in addition to them.
The law is problematic from a democratic point of view, he says:
"If you look at the exception you see that the work of authorities, trade and industry and journalists - the powerful in our society - are excluded from the law. They are not limited from the restriction, but the little man is."
Christoph Andersson agrees: "We are creating a society with European overtones, where journalists are privileged. With the Internet as a democratic tool, a Europe of the citizens could have been created. But what now? Is it about a Europe of the journalists?".
Barbro Hietala Nordlund isn't satisfied with the exceptions made for certain groups of society:
"But technically it was the only way to go", she says.
Interviews with other politicians show that few can describe the implications of the law. The leader of the left-wing party Vänsterpartiet hadn't heard about the law, even after her own party had voted for it in parliament (www.pul.nu).
It's a question of who's in charge of the public debate. Who has the right to criticize and spread his opinions in a democratic society? At the moment no one in Sweden seems to know the answer.
Sara Bengtsson |
