Swedish “Press Ombudsman” Declares “Freedom of the Press is Not a Given Right” in Response to “Xenophobic” Sites Being Shared by Swedes After the IKEA Murders


The Swedish establishment is up in arms.  Yes, again.  It must be any day ending in “y”.  What’s the outrage du jour in Sweden right now?  Well, in response to the recent fatal stabbings by a pair of migrants in an IKEA store, the “xenophobic” alternative media websites Fria Tider, News Today, and Avpixlat (these sites are roughly comparable to the Daily Mail) have become increasingly popular – so popular, in fact, that Sweden’s Press Ombudsman has taken notice.  Since the articles from these “xenophobic” websites have been shared on social media more than articles by “respectable” press outlets, the Swedish left is demanding a strong government crackdown on freedom of the press in order to stop the impressionable public from getting any wrong ideas.

SVT reports:

The Press Ombudsman Ola Sigvardsson is concerned that the Swedes are turning to sites run by political motives rather than journalistic ambitions.

Shock and horror!  The masses are revolting!

Oh, but that’s not all.  The Press Ombudsman went on to say…

Freedom of the press is not a given right

A consequence of hate speech and propaganda circulating on the internet is that the freedom of speech and press is jeopardized for everyone

-Freedom of speech and press is something we can’t take for granted. Politicians give us the right to express ourselves but that requires us to do it in a responsible manner. If we don’t perhaps the freedom will be restricted, says Ola Sigvardsson.

After the double homicide in Västeros the media reported which country the suspects were from. According to the rules of press ethics journalists are supposed to be careful about such information to respect the integrity of the individuals.

– In that case it was such a serious event that it was reasonable to publish that many details, for example that the two suspects were refugees living in an asylum facility. But the media are supposed to be careful about reporting the ethnic and religious background. One can be worried that there might be a shift so that this kind of information gets published even when they’re not relevant, says Ola Sigvardsson.

So, there you have it, plebs. Your rulers grant you freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean you can use it to disagree with them. Keep acting up and those rights that we generously give you just might have to be taken away, capisce?

It’s important to remember that, in postmodernist “human rights” discourse, “free speech” is a category of speech.  “Free speech” is speech that’s approved by the government, while anything else is “hate speech”.  The government decides which speech is “free speech” and which speech is “hate speech” – thus, “free speech” is state-licensed speech. Practically every single man, woman, and child in Europe wholeheartedly agrees that “hate speech is not free speech”.  Europeans learn this in school, and it’s just considered to be common sense there – something that everyone agrees with.  Anyone who doesn’t agree with it will be aggressively demonized as a hateful, racist, bigoted, fascist Nazi and subsequently cast away from society.  Yes, you will literally lose your job in Europe if you say that “hate speech” shouldn’t be a crime, and you’ll lose all of your friends too.  I’m not exaggerating here.  To the average European, saying that you think “hate speech” shouldn’t be a crime is on par with saying that you eat babies and stomp on puppies.

For a moment, let’s examine the leftist push for press regulation in other countries. Americans may not be aware of this, but not only is the US one of the only countries in the world where “hate speech” is completely legal, but it’s also one of the only countries in the world where press outlets and news outlets are not legally required to be “balanced” and “ethical”.  Needless to say, the already-existing press regulations in the rest of the world still aren’t good enough for the modern “progressive” left.  In the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, leftists have made several large pushes to institute a system of total government licensing of the press.  The UK, Australia, and New Zealand already have strict laws requiring all news outlets to be “balanced” and so forth, but that’s not good enough for the “progressives” in those countries – they want total government control of the press (ironically, they want the government to have total control of the press while simultaneously believing that the government is controlled by Rupert Murdoch). In the UK, the proposed Leveson Inquiry – pushed heavily by outlets like The Guardian along with “human rights” and “civil liberties” groups – would set up a system where all press outlets would have to be licensed by the government, and anything that isn’t “serious journalism” approved by the state would be banned. In Australia, the proposed Finkelstein Inquiry would take it even further – not only would press outlets have to be licensed, but so would blogs and websites (the mandatory blog registration proposed by Australia’s Labor and Greens parties was even stricter than the mandatory blog registration currently found in Russia).

Around the same time, Australian leftists came very close to passing something called the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill, which would make it a criminal offense to “offend” or “insult” anyone for any reason (including for “political opinion”) – and it declared that people would be automatically guilty unless they could prove their innocence (important note: this is considered “center-left” in Australia, and the Australian Greens actually stated that this proposed law “didn’t go far enough”).  Since this proposed law made it illegal to offend people based on “political opinion” (it also would have outlawed any expression of religious belief if someone were “offended” by it), the law would have effectively made it a crime to criticize the government – which, at the time, was controlled by Julia Gillard and other left-wingers. The Australian left wanted to shut down any press outlet that painted then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard in a negative light – they wanted a total government ban of all right-wing “hate media”, from Rupert Murdoch’s tabloids to any right-leaning blogs (or any blogs that criticized Gillard). Those very same leftists are, of course, now up in arms because current right-wing Prime Minister Tony Abbott has criticized (not tried to ban, but merely criticized) the taxpayer-funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) for having a very overt left-wing bias (the ABC makes MSNBC look like Rush Limbaugh by comparison). According to Australia’s leftists, Tony Abbott’s criticism of the ABC is a very severe attack on “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press”.

Following the examples of the UK and Australia, leftists in New Zealand made a similar push for state control and licensing of the press, citing the need to crack down on tabloids, “gutter journalism”, “biased” reporting, and right-wing “hate media” outlets which “manipulate public opinion against the common good”. Press regulation has become increasingly popular in Western countries around the world, and it’s the left that has pushed the most heavily for it – in particular, left-leaning “journalists” like those in The Guardian have been the leading cheerleaders of government press licensing.

The press naturally includes the Internet.  Indeed, when they were in power, Australia’s leftists also tried to set up a mandatory national Internet filter blocking all “hate sites” and other “objectionable” material on the Internet.  This failed miserably due to technological incompetence and was eventually abandoned, but the idea definitely hasn’t died, and Internet filtering is becoming increasingly popular in countries like France and the UK, as the elites seek to prevent the masses from accessing anything online which might lead to crimethink.

British iconoclast and self-proclaimed Marxist Brendan O’Neill has very accurately and succinctly summed up these left-wing pushes for press regulation in his many terrific articles on the subject. In a Telegraph article asking why today’s leftists so vigorously oppose press freedom when yesterday’s leftists like Karl Marx and George Orwell eagerly championed a free press, O’Neill completely nails it with this closing paragraph:

The truth is that it isn’t the press that has changed; it’s the Left. Fundamentally, the Left today, unlike the radicals of the past, has no faith whatsoever in ordinary people, in humanity itself, and thus it constantly turns to the state and asks it to fix the alleged problems blighting society or giving Leftists a headache. The reason modern Leftists want state interference in the press is because they don’t trust the people, the rabble, the little folk, to be able to read and see things and rationally make up their minds about what is good and bad, right and wrong. In the words of Brian Cathcart, “public interest journalism” is “obviously not the same thing as what interests the public… [because] that would legitimise all kinds of gratuitous cruelty and dishonesty, reviving the morality that permitted bear-baiting and public executions”. That is what modern Leftists think of the masses – that they’re cruel, dishonest, immoral, violent, and apparently these tendencies must be tamed by depriving the oiks of their daily fix of tabloid titillation. This is the true story behind the modern Left’s enthusiasm for more state interference in the world of ideas and news: the Left once believed in people; now it despises them.

As usual, Brendan couldn’t possibly be more correct. Whether they’re in Sweden, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, or anywhere else, sanctimonious elitists and bourgeoisie champagne socialists are absolutely terrified of the impact that an unregulated press – and, by extension, unregulated speech – will have on the filthy commoners and unwashed masses. After all, you DO know where freedom of speech leads to, right? Yep, that’s right – Nazi Germany, where speech was completely unfettered and millions of people died as a result of said freedom of speech.


Expect a lot more demands for press regulation and Internet regulation from the “human rights” lobby in Europe and elsewhere. A free flow of information like that provided by the World Wide Web is nothing short of an absolute nightmare for them.  It allows the plebeian masses that they despise to access the truth and make up their own minds about things, and that simply cannot be allowed.


  • Sweden is Swedophobic.


      Swebola symptoms – These include a complete loss of self-respect combined
      with smug arrogance, severe masochism, intense gender confusion, deep loathing for one’s own race and culture, a self-destructive urge to pay heavy taxes in order to be surrounded by the most dysfunctional elements of the Third World, and a psychopathic horror of free speech. In particularly severe cases it may even manifest as an urge to be gang-raped, murdered, and set on fire, followed by a wish to ‘forgive’ the perpetrators from beyond the grave.

  • k1992

    “Freedom of speech and press is something we can’t take for granted. Politicians give us the right to express ourselves but that requires us to do it in a responsible manner. If we don’t perhaps the freedom will be restricted, says Ola Sigvardsson.”

    So, let me get this straight: if the populace doesn’t say and do exactly as they’re told by the government, their right to say and do exactly as the government says will be restricted. OK – got it.

    • Jabberwokk

      Anyone who accepts that statement as true has already accepted themselves as a slave for the state.

      It become more and more apparent to me that having God as the constitutional origin of such rites is crucial. That way rights and freedoms are not in any man’s grasp to give or perhaps more importantly to take away.

      • kkruger71

        Even as an atheist I see the sense of your argument. If the right to free speech is a man-made right, then man can take it away.
        Not sure if there is a non-religious answer to stopping the erosion.

      • moraywatson

        And as an atheist I say “amen” to that. There is nothing more dangerous or evil than the worship of mortal men. (mohammed springs first to mind)

      • Martin B

        Your rights and freedoms are not in any government’s grasp to give or take because Government Isn’t God. The reason that having God as the constitutional origin if rights is not quite enough is because history demonstrates that governments inevitably forget that they’re not God, and then they need to be forcefully reminded of this by their people. That’s what Jefferson had in mind when he said the tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

      • DMB

        In Sweden the government is God.

  • Censored_EG

    Freedom of speech, in Sweden – as it is increasingly in so-called free nation-states – is dependent upon the politically correct nutjobs in power. Yasshole Arafart proved long ago that terrorism works. Need anything more be said?

  • “Politicians give us the right to express ourselves but that requires us to do it in a responsible manner. If we don’t perhaps the freedom will be restricted, says Ola Sigvardsson.”

    “Ola Sigvardsson” is an intellectual cripple talking head.

  • Martin B

    I learn something new every day here at BCF. Nazi Germany was all about freedom of speech, and we desperately need speech Nazis to save us from…Nazis.

    When it comes to sheer insanity, Leftism will give Islam a run for its money any day of the week.

    • Drunk_by_Noon

      That’s what made the Nazis so dangerous, too many civil liberties.
      If we erase civil liberties, we make people more free.

      Do they really think that way?
      Not likely, they are just too compromised to say anything different.

  • David Murrell

    According to the Swedish press ombudsman, it is “hate speech” to oppose murders on innocents by illegal immigrants. These are the values promoted by this fraud, this huckster.

  • Hard Little Machine

    We really can’t worry about them anymore.

    • They seem beyond hope but the SD party is now the most popular in Swedistan.

    • canminuteman

      The reason we worry about them is because exactly the same insanity will spread here. The disease isn’t uniquely Scandinavian.

      • Hard Little Machine

        Be that as it may. Crazy is as crazy does. Let the whole place burn to the ground and devolve to the stone age.

  • Norman_In_New_York

    What these leftist morons don’t realize is that free speech is an outlet to vent grievances and frustrations. Plug up that outlet and pressures building up inside are liable to explode into violence.

  • BrokenDrumsticks

    Sweden needs a plumber badly! They continue to swirl around the toilet but they just won’t go down!!

  • John

    It’s actually much worse than that in Europe. Manuel Valls, in an interview ‘accorded’ ( such noblesse!) to the French website “ripostelaique” back in April this year, stated that he’d suspend the electoral process if, in 2017, France elects Marine LePen. I thought at first that this interview was a joke, a parody…it isn’t. If you can read french halfways decently this item is a real eye opener


  • Waffle

    Orwell was so effing right!

  • canminuteman

    So, reporting the truth is considered “propaganda” by these people, but hiding it because it makes you look like an incompetent traitorous fool is just fine, and the pinnacle of journalistic integrity?.


    “In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ~ George Orwell

    “The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those that speak it” ~ George Orwell

    “Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.” ~ George Orwell

    “If large numbers of people believe in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech even if the law forbids it. But if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them.” ~ George Orwell

    • Norman_In_New_York

      “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

      • PAUL HURST

        “To speak his thoughts is every freeman’s right, In peace and war, in council and in fight” ~ Alexander Pope, 1688-1744

        Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” ~ Benjamin Franklin

        “Here’s freedom to him who would speak, Here’s freedom to him who would write, For there’s non ever feared that the truth should be heard, Save he who the truth would indict”. ~ Robert Burns ( 1759-96 )

        “The greatest jihad is to speak the word of truth to a tyrant.” ~ Mohammad

        “No nation, ancient or modern, ever lost the liberty of speaking freely, writing, or publishing their sentiments, but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves.” ~ John (Johann) Peter Zenger, (1697-1746), German-born American journalist and publisher

        “Stand upright, speak thy thoughts, declare the truth thou hast, that all may share; Be bold, proclaim it everywhere: They only live who dare.” ~ Sir Lewis Morris, (1833-1907), Anglo-Welsh poet

        “The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.” ~ John Adams, (1735-1826), 2nd American President

        “I would rather starve and rot and keep the privilege of speaking the truth as I see it, than of holding all the offices that capital has to give from the presidency down.” ~ Adams, Henry Brooks (1838-1918), American

        “And I honor the man who is willing to sink half his present repute for the freedom to think, and, when he has thought, be his cause strong or weak, Will risk t’ other half for the freedom to speak.” ~ James Russell Lowell, (1819-1891), American poet and author A Fable for Critics, 1848.

        To be wiser than other men is to be more honest than they, and strength of mind is only courage to see and speak the truth. William Haslett 1839

  • Justin St.Denis

    I stopped reading at “…Politicians give us the right to express ourselves……”

    Excuse me? How fucked in the head does one have to be to drop a nuclear bomb like that into a piece of “journalism” without batting an eyelash? Answer… Swedish-Fucked

    Sweden – where human reason goes to die.

    • Jabberwokk

      Isn’t Sweden suppose to be the crown jewel in the left’s Utopian vision? Like the one that’s closest to what they wanted to achieve?

      • Justin St.Denis

        Only before the drugs wear off….

  • moraywatson

    Well the fascist twat is right about one thing, freedom of the press is not a “given” right; it is an “inalienable” right. So fuck off you arrogant elitist cunt!

  • I always wanted to visit Sweden and experience their wonderful culture.
    But not so much now. Why would anyone travel to Sweden to experience middle eastern culture. …….

  • Andrew Brown

    There is some fairly dodgy info in this report. First, the USA is ranked 46th in the world by ‘Rapporteurs sans Frontiers’ for how free its press is. In other words, the ‘land of the free’ has a fairly dismal record on freedom of the press. Australia comes in a full 18 places above the USA at 28. New Zealand has a current world ranking of 9th. I’ve lived most of my life in New Zealand. Other than the usual whinging from leftists about how they want certain things banned, there is no movement to control or restrict the press. None of the main political parties support controlling the press.
    The press in both Australia and NZ are clearly freer to insult, investigate and torment those in power than their US equivalents. The author of this article has an embarrassing grasp on the facts I’m afraid to say.

    • Nimrod

      The press is not as free in the U.S. as people think it is, and this is the nature of the media-political complex. But I do have to wonder if the RSF metrics adequately capture the nature of the media-political complex in any given case. They may be measuring the most obvious things, and missing things that are subtle and difficult to measure.