Without Registration, Swedish Law Does Not Protect Wikileaks Sources 86
An anonymous reader writes with word that Wikileaks, which currently stores a lot of their material on servers in Sweden, may not be as safe there as once believed. From the above linked article (from April): "Wikileaks is benefiting form Sweden's basic law 'Grundlag' on the freedom of print information, because it also guarantees the anonymity of sources in digital media, say sources at the European Parliament. In Sweden, if a website registers with the public authorities and can prove it has an editor-in-chief, then it can also be protected under the law, argues the parliamentary source." Says the anonymous submtter, "However, it seems Wikileaks never registered with the public authorities (article in Swedish; here it is auto-translated to English), and thus is not protected by the freedom of print information basic law even if they do have an editor-in-chief."
Why do they need this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sweden's stringent whistleblower laws are protecting the anonymity of sources that have been feeding the controversial Wikileaks website with sensitive government and corporate information, according to Swedish political sources.
I thought their process of submitting leaks to Wikileaks provided the source with anonymity anyway, so that even if they were forced to give up their sources they would not have the information at all.
freedom... (Score:1, Interesting)
Freedom is having same without needing to "register with the civic authorities".
Re:So register (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, it's not really that simple. The editor in chief is directly responsible for what is published. A typical situation would be if a news paper commits copyright infringement, then the editor in chief is directly responsible and may be personally fined for that. Registering does not allow you to break the law.
The legislation does actually give some protection, and that includes things like not having to reveal your sources. Not even the police can force a registered news media to reveal their sources. That's were the protection is targeted, not at the media itself.
Re:WikiLeaks Denies (Score:1, Interesting)
I wonder who all has access to that Twitter account? I'm betting it is Julian Assange and Julian Assange alone who can post on that account, and of course he would refute the claim because if the claim proves to be true then Sweden is no longer a safe place for him.
Re:Why do they need this? (Score:1, Interesting)
It's weird that in Sweden you have to fill out paperwork to apply for protection of human rights (free speech isn't free under the cloud of kidnapping).
You don't have to fill out paperwork to protect human rights in Sweden. Freedom of speech for ordinary people is even "more free" then in USA, with no paperwork what so ever. With a publishing license the journalistic freedom is a hell of a lot more free then in USA. Without a publishing license it is still a bit better then in USA.
A journalistic outlet that is registered can't be asked to reveil its sources of information, even if an informant broke the law to get the information or by reveiling the information. The police can't spy or commit a search on a registered publisher to reveil an informant (not even if the informant commited murder to get the information, and not even, hypothetically, if he/she is a murderer that sends pictures of his/her victims to a newspaper (but I'm pretty sure most newspapers would cooperate with the police in such a case anyway)). A registered publisher is pretty much untouchable by the police when it comes to anything that has to do with the content of the publication.
Registration is free of cost (many Swedish bloggers register). What is required is someone that is responsible for that the content is legal ( and as mentioned earlier, a lot of content that would be illegal to publish in USA is legal in Sweden, but nothing that is illegal to publish in Sweden is legal to publish in USA, the freedom of the press is greater in Sweden then in USA).