As I have reported earlier the Danish Muhammad Caricatures scandal led the Swedish foreign office to close down a website which carried the cartoons.
The scandal is growing so its time for an update. Previously the Foreign Minister, Laila Freivalds, claimed that the actions were carried out by a civil servant acting on his own initiative. This has now changed when she admits that she had knowledge of what the Civil Servant was going to do. The act may even have been carried out under the Foreign Ministers initiative.
Much of the “defence” (moral & political not legal) seems to be that the Foreign Ministry did not (and cannot) order the closing of a website. The Foreign Ministry simply contacted the Internet Service Provider (ISP) and informed them that one of their customers (a right wing party) had copies of the cartoons.
The difference, according to the Foreign Minister, is one of coercion and recommendation. While this difference does exist it is interesting to note that the recommendations made by a private individual, an interest group and the office of the Swedish Foreign Minister will be treated differently. The Foreign Minister (or indeed any Minister) knows this and therefore the act of recommendation cannot be one of simple recommendation.
Additionally the Foreign Ministry (or indeed any other Ministry) does not have the mandate to call up private citizens to make recommendations in matters of freedom of the press and speech.
Naturally the ISP has it in its power to tell the Office of the Foreign Minister to sod off. Politely or impolitely. But it comes as no surprise that a small ISP in a cut throat market is not going to risk publicity or political, social or legal reactions on the part of an unsavory customer worth (in the best case) less than 300 USD per annum.
The conclusion? Internet censorship whether in China or in Sweden works.
I dedicate this picture to the Office of the Foreign Minister for not knowing
the difference between influence and coercion.