Muzzled in Finland, Part 4

I’ve written previously about Mikko Ellilä, Tomashot, and Jiri Keronen, three Finnish bloggers who have run afoul of the law for their “racist” writings. The last two have been convicted, fined, and silenced. All three committed unpardonable offenses against Multiculturalism: they dared to speak out about Finland’s suicidal immigration and asylum policies.

Now it looks as if more sacrificial lambs are being lined up, ready for the knife. The issue at hand concerns possible restrictions to be imposed on internet speech. What may be legitimately discussed online? What must not be said?

Tundra Tabloids has the story:

The astute Finnish blogger Vasarahammer alerts the Tundra Tabloids to an online article, published last Wednesday, Oct,12,08, by a minuscule central Finland paper called The Greater-Jyväskylä News, that devoted a sizable portion of its rather small paper to the important subject of free speech on the Internet.

In the article titled, ‘What can be written on the Internet?‘ — ‘Mitä netissä saa kirjoittaa? ‘ (pdf), the newspaper ponders the questions concerning certain limitations applied to free speech, which govern what is lawful and what is not. Here in Scandinavia there are hate-speech laws on the books, at least in Finland and in Sweden, called, “kiihottamisesta kansan-ryhmää vastaan“ (Fin), or “hets mot folkgrupp“ (Swe).

These laws were put into place to safeguard minorities, particularly Jewish minorities, in the aftermath of World War Two where over six million Jews were brutally butchered by the National Socialists and their supporters in Europe.

No matter how well intended, these anti-free speech laws are highly flawed due to ambiguity in the reading of the law, which can be seen in the progression of the interpretation of the law to also include ideologies, like Islam for an example. Here is what the City of Jyväskylä’s Chief Criminal Detective, Raimo Peltovuori, has to say about what is currently allowed under Finnish law to print, and what isn’t.

Also worth noting, the article included a picture of Vasarahammer’s blog.

A warning shot fired across Vasarahammer’s bow?

Vasarahammer: be alert! You’ve been warned; you’re up next. Set up a legal defense fund now. Notify us; we’ll help you raise funds for it at Gates of Vienna.

One thing in particular stands out in this report: the role of newspapers in the suppression of speech on the internet. This is no accident: the blogosphere is in direct competition with the established newspapers and other bastions of Old Media.
- - - - - - - - -
Over the decades they have convinced us that freedom of speech and freedom of the press existed. They were clear proof of it: were they not out there telling you about it, bravely speaking truth to power?

The ugly little secret is that the legacy media were (and are) a part of the dominant power structure. By a sleight of hand they convinced their readers and viewers that they were courageous investigators, dispassionate journalists exposing corruption and abuse of power, when all the while they were part of that power.

Those whom they favored, prospered. Those whom they frowned upon disappeared without a trace.

Now everything has changed. A little dog has pulled back the curtain, exposing the silly man with his hands on the levers that control the smoke machine. Alternative points of view exist and are being heard. They draw people away from the traditional organs of the media, thereby reducing their power and influence.

No wonder they want to control what we say.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Back to KGS’ translation of what Detective Raimo Peltovuori had to say:

Criminal law states that any statements or information spread to the general public which threatens, slanders or insults a certain national, racial or ethnic, religious group, or equates them with a national group is a punishable offense. Complaints over this have been filed with the police every now and then.

[…]

Finland has freedom of speech, how is it limited? — We have freedom of speech, but a text can’t insult anyone.

Speech is free, unless someone is insulted. If it insults someone, then you can’t say it.

And what is the most habitually insulted group in the West?

Who is the beneficiary of all this? Hmm?

And this is very curious: what is proscribed is that which “insults a certain national, racial or ethnic, religious group, or equates them with a national group”.

What does this mean?

Who is equated with a “national group”? Why does this matter? What must not be said?

This double-talk covers almost anything significant that a Counterjihad person would want to say. So if you live in Finland, they’ve got you down cold. Don’t say anything less than adulatory about wogs, or Muslims, or Somalis. Don’t ascribe to them any negative characteristics.

Otherwise you may find yourself facing the sharp end of Finnish “justice”.