A young boy in his early teens was shot dead at the Mälarhöjden sports ground in southern Stockholm. A video clip showing the murder was circulated on social media shortly after the murder. Something that has been talked about and raised questions about whether it is permissible to publish and spread similar violent videos in social media.
One of the accounts that posted the video on Instagram has over 25,000 followers. The video clip showing the killing had been viewed by hundreds of thousands before it was replaced with a still image of the young man lying face down on the grass. The account continues to promise material with new attacks and videos.
According to Mårten Schultz, professor of civil law, there are loopholes in the law which mean that it is not always illegal to spread similar videos on social media. But to answer the question of whether it is against the law, you have to look at each individual clip and publication, he believes.
– It depends more precisely on what is shown in the film. But you can generally say that there are a number of rules in the criminal code that make it illegal to spread images and videos, says Schultz.
Defamation of the deceased
The two rules that touch on the subject are unlawful invasion of privacy and defamation of the deceased, he explains.
In the case of defamation of the deceased, it is required that pictures of the deceased also contain derogatory information that can be classified as defamation. Images of dead people are generally not considered derogatory, says Schultz.
– The defamation law makes it illegal to distribute films where someone is portrayed as blameworthy. So if you spread a film like the one from Mälarhöjden’s sports field in combination with a disparaging or offensive text about the victim of the crime, it could be defamation. And it can also be defamation of the deceased if it is about a dead person.
Something that Schultz believes is not so unusual, especially when it comes to video footage from the criminals’ gang showdown that is spread with hateful and mocking comments.
Does not include dead people
– The Act on Unlawful Intrusion of Privacy is there to protect the individual’s privacy. When someone who is subjected to a crime is filmed, such as videos of abuse, it can be an illegal invasion of privacy when someone spreads such videos, says Schultz.
But he believes that the law on illegal invasion of privacy does not cover dead people, as in the case of the video clip in Fruängen.
– The integrity of the dead cannot be violated. So in the case of dead people, privacy is not protected by this rule in the Criminal Code.
– In the case of attempted murder when the person depicted is alive, the probability is significantly greater that it is not permitted, says Schultz.
Gaps in the law
The law on illegal invasion of privacy should be revised so that it also covers people who are dead, says Schultz. He believes that there are gaps in the legislation which means that it is not always punishable to distribute linked videos.
– It is difficult to find rules in the criminal law that prohibit this type of distribution. It is wrong that the law on illegal invasion of privacy cannot be applied when it comes to dead people, especially if the film that is distributed reflects a murder.
“Restrictive rules”
TV4 Nyheterna has unsuccessfully searched for the company Meta, which, among other things, owns Instagram and Facebook.
But the boss for Meta’s policy work in Sweden, Janne Elvelid, says SvD that there are “relatively restrictive rules” regarding the type of material you can post on Instagram.
– Of course, you must not glorify or incite violence. There are two examples, says Elvelid to the newspaper.
He tells the newspaper that the content of several of the accounts that spread the material has been taken into account and the content has been forwarded for review.