A man was convicted on Friday of molestation for placing apples painted with Hitler's face at the door of Migration Minister Johan Forssell's (M) residence and for making illegal threats with an IS doll with a pretend knife outside the home of Development Cooperation Minister Benjamin Dousa (M).
The man, who is linked to the activist group Rojava Committees, will appeal and invokes freedom of expression. He says it was a protest against the government.
Freedom of expression expert Nils Funcke believes that the court could have highlighted that an action outside a minister's residence is inappropriate and may constitute harassment, but could still have given greater weight to the interest in freedom of expression and not imposed any punishment.
You want to set an example and you should of course do so when it is truly justified and when, on the other side of the scale, there is no interest in freedom of expression.
The risk is that it will have a restraining effect and lead to people being reluctant to exercise their freedom of expression.
“Weak argument”
According to Funcke, the individual activist cannot be blamed for threats against politicians, but the case must be examined on its own merits.
I think the reasoning in the district court's ruling is weak. I don't think they have shown that the requirements of serious fear or reckless behavior are met.
For unlawful threats, it is legally required that someone threatens to commit a criminal act in a way intended to induce serious fear in the person who is being threatened.
In both Forssell's and Dousa's cases, I understand that they were initially concerned. However, as to whether it has created serious fear, i.e. instilled fear in Dousa, I do not believe that the criterion is met.
“Not criminal”
In the Forssell case, the prosecutor had pleaded for unlawful threats, but the district court instead ruled it to be molestation.
Funcke believes that it is "very far-reaching" to convict for molestation in the case, as it involves harassing contact or other reckless actions that noticeably violate the victim's peace.
The act in the form of the basket and the post on social media is not criminal in any way, and the district court also states that. It is believed it was not directed at Forssell personally, but at the government; despite that, it is considered that the right to a protected zone was violated.
