Defamation remains a criminal offence in Sweden.

The Swedish Criminal Code includes two related offences: defamation (Ch. 5, Sec. 1) and insult (Ch. 5, Sec. 3)

Defamation is defined as pointing someone out as being a criminal or as having a reprehensible way of living or furnishing information intended to cause exposure to the disrespect of others. The punishment is a fine .

Aggravated defamation, which depends on the “content or scope of dissemination” of the statement and whether it “was calculated to bring about serious damage”, is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to two years.

Insult, defined as vilifying another by an insulting epithet or accusation or by other infamous conduct, is punishable by a fine, if the act is not already punishable as defamation. Gross insult can result in imprisonment for up to six months.

Insult usually involves directly insulting a person in that person’s presence. By contrast, defamation is committed when speaking about a person who is not present.

Sweden has double legislation regarding defamation and insult committed via the media. The Freedom of the Press Act (Ch. 7) and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression (Ch. 5) cover defamation and insult committed via print and audiovisual media, respectively. The offences are defined in the same way as in the Penal Code and the provisions of the Penal Code fully apply in criminal defamation cases involving the press. Furthermore, all crimes in the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression must also be a crime in the Criminal Code.

The law on criminal procedure related to defamation was amended in July 2014. It now states (Ch 5, Sec. 5) that while defamation is normally to be prosecuted privately by the offended party, the public prosecutor may bring charges if the offended party is under 18 years old or in other cases in which the offended party requests it and the bringing of charges is in the public interest and the offence relates to:
• Defamation or aggravated defamation (förtal och grovt förtal);
• Insult (förolämpning) committed against public authority;
• Insult with reference to race, colour, national origin or ethnic or religious belief; or
• Insult with reference to sexual orientation.

Additionally, both the Freedom of the Press Act (Ch. 12, Sec. 2) and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression (Ch. 9, Sec. 1) require that media cases “in which there is a question of liability under penal law” be conducted as a jury trial. A jury is to consist of nine members, six of whom must vote for a conviction. If the court disagrees with the jury’s verdict, it has only the option of acquitting the defendant or applying a lesser penalty.

The Swedish Criminal Code also contains a provision on “ethnic agitation”. A statement that
“threatens or expresses contempt for a national, ethnic or other such group of persons with allusion to race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religious belief or sexual orientation” incurs a penalty of imprisonment for up to two years or a fine. In the case of a serious offence – if the statement was “particularly threatening or abusive” and disseminated in a way “likely to arouse considerable attention” – the penalty is six months to four years’ imprisonment (Ch. 16, Sec. 8).

No provisions.

Offence toward the monarch and the royal family (lèse-majesté) remains a criminal offence in Sweden under the Swedish Criminal Code.

Defamation or insult committed against the King or other member of the Royal Family is a criminal offence under Ch. 18, Sec. 2 of the Criminal Code. The punishment is imprisonment for up to four years, or up to six years in the case of gross defamation.

No provisions.

Chapter 5, Sec. 5 of the Criminal Code provides special rules for the prosecution of defamation or insult directed at foreign heads of state. As noted above in “Criminal defamation and insult laws”, defamation is normally to be prosecuted privately by the offended party, except in the exceptions stated.

The final paragraph of this article adds that if an offence of defamation or insult is committed against a foreign head of state in Sweden or a foreign diplomatic representative in Sweden, the case is to be handled by prosecutors upon approval of the government.

No provisions.

According to Ch. 5, Sec. 5 of the Swedish Criminal Code, family members or the public prosecutor may initiate prosecutions for defamation of the deceased if it is considered to be in the public interest.

No provisions.

The following are official data on criminal justice from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet – Brå) for the year 2013.
• For defamation, there were 9 conviction decisions, resulting in 9 criminal fines.
• For gross (aggravated) defamation, there were 12 conviction decisions, resulting in 1 suspended prison sentence, 2 criminal fines, one sentence of probation, 2 conditional community service sentences and 6 sentences for youth offenders.
• For insult, there were 16 conviction decisions, resulting in 16 criminal fines.
• There were no convictions for lèse-majesté.

The following are official data for the year 2015 (most recent year available) :
• For defamation, there were 14 conviction decisions, resulting in 2 youth service orders, 11 fines and 1 prosecutor fine.
• For gross (aggravated) defamation, there were 10 conviction decisions, resulting in 1 fine, 1 youth service, 1 youth care and 7 suspended sentences.
• For insult, there were 19 conviction decisions, resulting in3 waiver of prosecution, 2 prosecutor fines, 14 fines
• There were no convictions for lèse-majesté.

General notes

Swedish experts indicate that it is relatively unusual for persons who feel that their reputation has been injured to go to court. Offended parties are more likely to bring a complaint to the Press Ombudsman or the Swedish Broadcasting Authority, which is governed by the statutory Radio and Television Act.

Criminal prosecutions for defamation involving the media are rare in Sweden. This may be due in part to the extensive requirements for conducting such cases under the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression.

Selected cases

Sjöberg-Persbrandt case
In December 2006, a Stockholm jury convicted Otto Sjöberg, then editor-in-chief of the Swedish tabloid newspaper Expressen, of committing criminal libel against Swedish actor Mikael Persbrandt. A year prior, Expressen had reported that Persbrandt had been admitted to a hospital in Uppsala for alcohol poisoning. Persbrandt challenged the report as factually inaccurate and Expressen later issued an apology, admitting that it had made a mistake and explaining that it had had been misinformed by a source. The actor sued the paper for libel anyway, requesting 500,000 kronor in damages. In addition, prosecutors elected to press criminal charges against Sjöberg and Expressen.

At trial, although Sjöberg reportedly admitted to a “serious failure” that had hurt the paper’s standing, lawyers for Expressen argued that Persbrandt’s alleged struggle with alcohol was public knowledge and that the actor’s reputation could not have been damaged by the article, even if the facts regarding the clinic turned out to be untrue. The nine-member jury acquitted Sjöberg of gross libel, but found him guilty of standard libel. The Stockholm District Court sentenced him to pay 80 day fines of 1,000 kronor each (for a total of 80,000 kronor) and to pay damages to Persbrandt in the amount of 75,000 kronor.

Schyman case
In 2003, the Swedish Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) upheld an appeals court judgment ordering Expressen to pay a criminal fine of 60,000 kronor for defaming Gudrun Schyman, the leader of the Swedish Left Party. However, the Supreme Court lowered the amount of damages Expressen was required to pay to Schyman, from 100,000 kronor to 50,000 kronor.
The case stemmed from a 2001 Expressen cover headline that read: “Gudrun Schyman to appear in erotic film with her ex-husband: ‘One should be horny’” (“Gudrun Schyman spelar in erotisk film tillsammans med sin ex-man: ‘Man ska bli kåt'”). Schyman considered that the headline implied that she was involved in pornography, and sued for libel. The district court (Tingsrätt) threw out the case. The Svea Court of Appeal, however, agreed that readers of the headline would conclude that Schyman was to appear in a pornographic film.

The law on criminal procedure related to defamation was amended in July 2014. It now states that while defamation is normally to be prosecuted privately by the offended party, the public prosecutor may bring charges if the offended party is under 18 years old or in other cases in which the offended party requests it and the bringing of charges is in the public interest and the offence relates to:
• Libel or gross libel (förtal och grovt förtal);
• Insult (förolämpning) committed against public authority;
• Insult with reference to race, colour, national origin or ethnic or religious belief; or
• Insult with reference to sexual orientation.

Information for Sweden was originally collected by IPI as part of the “Out of Balance” report, published in January 2015 with support from the European Commission and incorporating research contributed by Center for Media, Data and Society at Central European University in Budapest and by the SHARE Foundation in Belgrade. This entry was later expanded and updated by IPI as part of a study commissioned by the Office of the Representative on Freedom of the Media of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

A fully footnoted version of this entry is available in the OSCE study. This entry was last updated in March 2017.

The information contained in this database is for informational and advocacy purposes only. If you are a journalist facing a defamation claim, you should seek legal advice from a qualified attorney. However, if you are unable to find such an attorney, IPI may be able to assist you in doing so. Please contact us at info(at)ipi.media.