The Chief Prosecutor wonders whether the police, prosecutor, and court are really needed for appointment cases.
Oulu a familiar-sounding case is pending in the district court. Editor of Iltalehti Tommi from Parkko accused the Oulu city councilor Junes Lokan defamation.
A similar type of case just got leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In it, the Court of Appeal condemned the journalist-writer Johanna Vehko For insulting Loka’s honor after calling Loka, among others, a Nazi on social media.
The now accused Parkkonen tells STT that the tweet published in April 2019 was a primitive reaction to the district verdict received by Vehko at that time. The intention was to criticize the operation of the district court.
In his tweet, Parkkonen called Lokka, among other things, the final disposal of humanity and also used other gross and offensive expressions about him. As finals, he sent greetings to the Oulu District Court, which had handled the Vehko case.
According to Parkkonen, Loka should tolerate sub-style language himself, because he cultivates one himself. Looking back, he notes that the tweet was intentionally stupid and provocative.
“It was an astonishment at the verdict that Vehko received, and I guess its terribly bad point was whether this would become a lawsuit too. When it became, maybe now I would do it differently, ”says Parkkonen.
However, he denies guilty of defamation with his tweet.
Lokka has said in his video that he made a request for an investigation into Parkkonen himself, although he states in the same video that the defamation clause should be removed from the Penal Code altogether.
He has profiled himself with his sub-style use of language. A municipal councilor convicted of two incitements against a group of people has, among other things, called Muslims stupid and sick. In addition, Loka’s blog called another man a lunatic, a sociopath, and a narcissist, which is why the court has ordered his writings to be removed. According to Loka, it was a social debate at the time. Supreme master calling as a whore, he explained by the fact that the name meant only a person he did not like.
According to the Oulu District Court, he is currently being prosecuted for four different defamations, dissemination of information and incitement to privacy against a group of people.
The BTI asked Loka if he was really injured in the case or if the lawsuits were a tool for him to make a policy.
“The Ministry of Justice says that hate speech is a punishable act and hate speech must be reported to the police (…) Shouldn’t we then obey what the Ministry of Justice says,” Lokka states.
He does not want to discuss the subject in more depth, as he considers BTI to be a “false medium”.
Let’s go The case between Loka and Loka also played a part in the fact that Parkkonen’s writings exceeded the prosecution threshold.
“The decision of the Rovaniemi Court of Appeal in the Vehko case had an effect on exceeding the prosecution threshold. The court held that similar conduct is punishable. Of course, we follow the decision-making practice of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, for example, when making decisions, ”the prosecutor of the case Anna-Leena Farin says.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Northern Finland Prosecutor’s Office and Prosecutor of the Vehkoo case Kirsi Männikkö says at a general level that a prosecutor cannot fail to prosecute on the grounds that someone is seeking publicity or, for example, political gain.
“In addition to legal provisions, we are guided by, among other things, case law, we strive to follow the decisions of the courts. In addition, the line is guided, for example, by the solutions of the public prosecutor. In the end, the prosecutor always makes the decision to prosecute independently. ”
Pine stand notes, without commenting on a case – by – case basis, that the defamation clause could be critically reconsidered. Under the Penal Code, a person who presents false information or allusion to another in such a way that the act is likely to cause harm, suffering or contempt for the offended shall be convicted of the defamation.
In addition, the judgment is given to one who, other than above, despises another. According to Männikö, this so-called second point leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
In Finnish times, potential cases are taken to the darkest in the clouds, but only some find their way to the grater. An interpretative article and its application often raises the question of whether justice is the same for all. Helsingin Sanomat’s recent statement according to this is not the case, as the line between the police, prosecutors and the court varies randomly. Defamation is also a criminal offense, ie the prosecutor cannot prosecute unless the victim of the crime is active in the case.
“It could be a good idea to look at giving up the second paragraph of the article. In addition to the possibility of interpretation, the fact that there is freedom of speech in the second horizontal cup is in favor of giving up this. One issue is the lack of action. In my opinion, the designation is mainly equated with bad behavior, and not all bad behavior should be dealt with in criminal proceedings, ”Männikkö says.
He wonders whether appointments and barking could be treated as civil lawsuits. In that case, the injured party could still seek redress through the courts, but there would be no need for a police and prosecutor in between.
#Defamation #Iltalehtis #journalist #sued #insulting #honor #Oulu #politician #distributes #insults #Twitter