Broadcast United

Attorney General criticizes government for restricting employees’ free speech during racism scandal | Yle News

Broadcast United News Desk
Attorney General criticizes government for restricting employees’ free speech during racism scandal | Yle News

[ad_1]

The attorney general argued that posts on the government intranet criticizing then-Economy Minister William Junila (a Finn) were acceptable under freedom of speech.

The facade of the Government Palace.

File photo: The front of the Government Palace. Photo: Ilkka Klemola / Yle

The Minister of Justice concluded that the freedom of expression of a Foreign Ministry employee was restricted during the Finnish government’s racism crisis last summer Thomas Poisty In the documents obtained by Yle.

The employee criticised the prime minister’s office after being asked to remove posts from the government staff intranet. The posts included a picture of the then economic affairs minister. Wilhelm JunilaThe (Finnish) public Facebook account depicts a snowman resembling a KKK figure, a Nazi symbol, and a message about “Release poison gas” The employee also added sarcastic comments to the images.

After the story was published, a news editor in the government’s internal communications department called the employee and asked him to remove the images. The employee refused, citing free speech and the duty of public officials to uphold equality.

After being rejected, the employee reported that the editor’s tone became more pressing, but the investigation indicated that the editor did not ask for the post to be removed.

The employee asked about possible consequences if the images were not removed. The editor reportedly responded that there “maybe” there would be consequences, which the employee interpreted as a threat and deleted the images after the call.

Pöysti’s assessment criticises the practice of restricting freedom of expression based solely on political sensitivity, saying it does not meet the conditions required for such restrictions.

He stressed that the employee’s posts involved “political discussions and issues of public interest” and were entitled to strict protection of free speech.

[ad_2]

Source link

Share This Article
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *