Freedom of expression and freedom of the media

Participants assessed the level of press freedom as very high in Finland. The legal environment offered solid protection, for example in the area of access to documents or respect for source confidentiality, and legal sanctions were limited to serious cases of defamation or matters of national security.

The media landscape was considered particularly vibrant given the relatively small size of the Finnish population. Public television and radio was fully independent, attracting half of the general population. The national, local and regional press landscape was also vibrant. Finland, however, was not exempt from the general trend towards media concentration, as social media had been pulling advertising 
revenue away from traditional media. This had led to a slight reduction of the editorial offer in a free media market that was not subject to state intervention. Overall, there was a strong tradition of newspaper reading, and many households subscribed to at least one daily newspaper. One of the main challenges in the area of media freedom concerned the under representation of minorities, such as
people with migrant backgrounds and indigenous Sami.

The Council of Mass Media composed of academics, media professionals, and civil society representatives took up cases where a complainant felt misrepresented in the media. Participants believed that the media was largely exempt from direct influence from politicians, despite isolated incidents. There were occasional cases of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP), especially against freelance journalists, but they remained rare. Participants mentioned that a journalist was charged for reporting on security matters, allegedly because of the use of leaked classified information, however it had later emerged that he had only used publicly available information. One participant considered that the monitoring role of journalists was made harder by the trend revealed 
during COVID-19 to make political decisions based on complex data or artificial intelligence.

Participants agreed that the key challenge related to freedom of expression was hate speech. An example was given of a politician being cleared by a court of attacking homosexuality based on references to the Bible (however it was considered a positive development that the public prosecutor appealed the decision). On the other hand, another journalist had been convicted – before being cleared in a higher instance – for mocking a far-right politician. Participants felt that online hate speech particularly affected the ability of women and minorities to engage in public discussions and, notably, to run for elections. They felt that there was a general lack of awareness on what counted as 
hate speech, with very few cases where the courts had sought to define it. Russia-connected attempts to interfere in public life took the form of online disinformation led by social media influencers, who would use any possible topic (COVID-19, refugees, NATO membership) to spread fake news. Concerning hate speech, the Finnish authorities indicated that despite all political will, the phenomenon would be difficult to address in a country with such strong traditions in freedom of expression. Concerning disinformation, the authorities pointed to statistics showing that the country succeeded relatively well in addressing online disinformation compared to other countries.