According to the Helsinki District Court, Helsingin Sanomat journalists were guilty of revealing a security secret in an article about Viestikoekeskus. The decision may make the work of journalists more difficult.
The Helsinki District Court today sentenced two journalists from Helsingin Sanomat in the so-called Viestikoekeskus trial.
According to the district court’s judgment, the article, published five years ago, published information that was classified as secret for reasons of Finland’s external security.
– In a country like Finland, the very start of the process was very unusual, and the verdict was also surprising.
According to the president of the Journalists’ Union, the verdict may have a restrictive effect on freedom of speech.
– This case can be considered a watershed. The job of journalists is to tell the citizens what is happening in this country. That right has now been limited.
Aho considers it problematic that in the Viestikoekeskus case, the law determines what can and cannot be published.
– If the law determines what is allowed to be published, it is very difficult for journalists.
– It seems that slightly different rules apply to national defense and the Defense Forces in Finland. It is difficult for a journalist to know what to write about. It easily leads to self-censorship.
According to Aho, the narrowing of freedom of speech has far-reaching consequences.
– Finland has been a model country for freedom of speech. This affects Finland’s reputation more broadly.
“Journalists were condemned for doing their job”
The penalties handed down by the district court were relatively small. Only one of the journalists was sentenced to daily fines.
– In my opinion, the prison sentence demanded by the prosecutor was completely unreasonable. However, as a representative of the Union of Journalists, I can’t think of anything good about a journalist being judged for doing his job at all.
The District Court dismissed the charges, which sought to punish the journalists for *attempting* to reveal a security secret. This refers to follow-up stories and story drafts planned for publication.
– After all, this is a positive thing. Acquiring information and clarifying matters is part of a journalist’s normal work. It would have been fatal if the mere finding out had resulted in a conviction.
The trial has been extraordinary. Journalists have not been threatened with imprisonment in Finland during peacetime.
– All in all, this has been a rare case, Hanne Aho states.
“A big risk to freedom of expression”
– This is a serious place. When a journalist is judged for doing his job, it is a big risk for freedom of speech.
Although the punishments were small in the end, according to Muka, the damage has already happened.
– This process alone has narrowed freedom of speech in Finland. The threat of a prison sentence can raise the threshold of journalists to tackle socially significant topics. It, in turn, weakens the opportunity for citizens to form their own perception of what is happening in society.