crepeface posted:

who do you think it was then

gradenko_2000 posted:

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Lmao

Is this real? Social fascism indeed.

mlmp08 posted:

I feel like I've been very, very clear on this. I do not know.
E: what a poo poo snipe

ted hitler hunter posted:

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/riksdagen-beslutar-om-grundlagsandring-spionerilagen-blir-tryckfrihetsbrott

Dear Swedish journalists, don't reveal information that can harm Swedish relations with other countries, "international organizations" such as NATO, or the EU.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/1594798907330011150

mlmp08 posted:

I feel like I've been very, very clear on this. I do not know.
E: what a poo poo snipe

Pretzel Rod Stewart posted:

it’s cool we have a CIA agent itt

Killin_Like_Bronson posted:

Do you acknowledge that we're trusting the work of only Sweden's investigation of which results they admit to not sharing?

mlmp08 posted:

I feel like I've been very, very clear on this. I do not know.
E: what a poo poo snipe

gradenko_2000 posted:

What else is even there to "improve" about a gun that isn't specialisation

mlmp08 posted:

Ames is leaving out that the reporting would only run afoul of law if it obtained and released classified government documents that directly harm national security. So Swedish journalists can poo poo-talk the government and international relations all they like, with no legal repercussion. The controversy is Sweden removed protections for sources who provide classified documentation that harms national security to other countries. And who really wants to be the potential criminal test case for what classified docs qualify?

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/Papapishu/status/1285078245898149893?t=d-vjZW0DKqDRn3sm9lRBXA&s=19

mlmp08 posted:

Which investigation would you rather we use?

Killin_Like_Bronson posted:

Good think this law was enacted just at the right time to ensure no sources come to light who could hurt nato regarding pipeline sabotage. What a coincidence.

mlmp08 posted:

I suspect the coincidence was with NATO accession, not with the Nordstream attacks.

1: It doesn't take effect until 1 JAN 2023. So the press isn't prevented even today from reporting classified info under the old rules.
2: Sweden started an inquiry to determine if they needed such a law in 2017.
3: The law was passed its first reading in Swedish legislature in April of 2022.

So if you think it is tied to the Nordstream in particular, they did the first reading of the draft law in April and it doesn't even take effect immediately, so any journalist or source who could publish damning info can do so right this moment.

The more boring answer: In order for Sweden to be considered a trustworthy sharing partner when they join NATO, they found they'd need teeth to prevent journalists and sources from revealing classified information without consequence. The law as written appears overly broad to me, as it leaves journalists to gamble on what is and isn't justifiable and what does or doesn't harm national security (is it illegal to report on graft or sexual abuse of subordinates during some mission, for example?).

Do you think Sweden was in on some pipeline plan since April of 2022, but then left themselves wide open to reporting until 1 JAN 23, just to live dangerously?

crepeface posted:

literally did not read

Killin_Like_Bronson posted:

Good thing this law was enacted just at the right time to ensure no sources come to light who could hurt nato regarding pipeline sabotage. What a coincidence.

Megamissen posted:

as is changes the grundlag it will not take effect until after another vote four years from now

lobster shirt posted:

they should invent target seeking bullets

mlmp08 posted:

I suspect the coincidence was with NATO accession, not with the Nordstream attacks.

1: It doesn't take effect until 1 JAN 2023. So the press isn't prevented even today from reporting classified info under the old rules.
2: Sweden started an inquiry to determine if they needed such a law in 2017.
3: The law was passed its first reading in Swedish legislature in April of 2022.

So if you think it is tied to the Nordstream in particular, they did the first reading of the draft law in April and it doesn't even take effect immediately, so any journalist or source who could publish damning info can do so right this moment.

The more boring answer: In order for Sweden to be considered a trustworthy sharing partner when they join NATO, they found they'd need teeth to prevent journalists and sources from revealing classified information without consequence. The law as written appears overly broad to me, as it leaves journalists to gamble on what is and isn't justifiable and what does or doesn't harm national security (is it illegal to report on graft or sexual abuse of subordinates during some mission, for example?).

Do you think Sweden was in on some pipeline plan since April of 2022, but then left themselves wide open to reporting until 1 JAN 23, just to live dangerously?

mlmp08 posted:

oh, ha... didn't realize it doesn't take effect for literal years.

MLMPBot posted:

It is not accurate or fair to say that liberals as a group use tedious and pedantic rhetoric in order to avoid addressing salient arguments. In fact, using tedious and pedantic rhetoric can be a tactic used by individuals of any political persuasion, and it is not necessarily specific to liberals.

However, it is possible for an individual liberal to use tedious and pedantic rhetoric as a way to deflect attention from important arguments or to try to appear more knowledgeable or credible. For example, an individual liberal might present a long and detailed argument that is full of technical terms and cites a large number of sources, but fails to address the crux of the issue or the main points being raised by the opposition.

gradenko_2000 posted:

ContinuityNewTimes posted:

I don't think that's a real ban

Frosted Flake posted:

BrutalistMcDonalds posted:

deleted it, yeah? would be a shame if that happened and then it spread

genericnick posted:

Do we have a good source for this?

mlmp08 posted:

Ames is leaving out that the reporting would only run afoul of law if it obtained and released classified government documents that directly harm national security. So Swedish journalists can poo poo-talk the government and international relations all they like, with no legal repercussion. The controversy is Sweden removed protections for sources who provide classified documentation that harms national security to other countries. And who really wants to be the potential criminal test case for what classified docs qualify?

AnimeIsTrash posted:

O_o, how do you think like this when the US has a similar law and the courts constantly rule in favor of the dod/cia/fbi/etc anytime it's challenged

mlmp08 posted:

As for cover to future bad things, yeah, that's part of the press corps' argument. A Swedish journalist published a story about sexual abuse among military members in Africa. Would that be illegal as harming national security? Who knows, but not great for a journalist to have to debate whether they should publish the story vs risk to them or their source becoming a criminal.

mlmp08 posted:

I think the law is overly broad, based on the summaries posted by press advocacy groups. I was only pointing out that it's tremendously misleading to the point of lying to say the law outlaws criticizing the government.