Form före frihet? - Motiven bakom grundlagens tillämpning på podcasts

Sammanfattning: For the past few years, podcasts have grown to become an important form of expression for exchange of ideas and opinions. However, similarly to other publications on the internet, podcasts struggle to fall under the Swedish constitution; the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. The question of how the constitution applies to podcasts remains unnoticed in the preparatory works as well as in Swedish case law. Therefore, this essay seeks to clarify how the application works in comparison to how the Freedom of Press Act applies to printed issues. If that is not already the case, publications on the internet might soon be the most important instrument for public opinion and news distribution. Thus, the result of this essay will illustrate what gaps that have to be filled in order to reach an equivalent degree of freedom of expression that printed issues currently possess. Even though the topic of a constitution that applies similarly to all modes of expression has been investigated by the government over the past two decades, the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression is lacking in its application on digital expressions. The most recent investigation from 2016 by Mediegrundlagskommittén has concluded that, in light of its purpose, publications on the internet should be covered by the constitution, but that the problems it may implicate outweigh the advantages. This causes legal uncertainty for podcasts which therefore need to be published on a website that falls under the application to get the protection of the constitution. This is rarely an obstacle for news agencies since the law is intentionally designed for those subjects and thus the constitution applies automatically. Still, the preparatory works state that the constitution is aimed to cover all mass communication which contributes to the dissemination of information or opinions. In this sense, it is remarkable that quite a few podcasts that reach high publicity are still not applicable for the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression.