Advanced

Nazisters demonstrationsfrihet – eller häcklarens veto? - En komparativ studie mellan Sverige och USA

Nordbring, Lisa LU (2017) LAGF03 20172
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I september 2017 fick nazistiska Nordiska Motståndsrörelsen
demonstrationstillstånd i Göteborg, vilket orsakade en stor debatt i Sverige.
En liknande debatt väcktes i USA 1977 när en nazistisk grupp ansökte om
att demonstrera. Händelserna väcker frågor; bör demonstrationsfriheten
innefatta nazistiska demonstrationer? Vad är statens förhållningssätt till
våldsamma motdemonstranter? Syftet med uppsatsen är att med hjälp av
argument från den demokratiska idétraditionen, domar och förarbeten
undersöka hur Sverige och USA legitimerar demonstrationsfrihet för
nazister samt om den kan begränsas p.g.a. våldsamma motdemonstranter.

I Sverige utgör demonstrationsfriheten en av demokratins hörnstenar och
har grundläggande betydelse för fri... (More)
I september 2017 fick nazistiska Nordiska Motståndsrörelsen
demonstrationstillstånd i Göteborg, vilket orsakade en stor debatt i Sverige.
En liknande debatt väcktes i USA 1977 när en nazistisk grupp ansökte om
att demonstrera. Händelserna väcker frågor; bör demonstrationsfriheten
innefatta nazistiska demonstrationer? Vad är statens förhållningssätt till
våldsamma motdemonstranter? Syftet med uppsatsen är att med hjälp av
argument från den demokratiska idétraditionen, domar och förarbeten
undersöka hur Sverige och USA legitimerar demonstrationsfrihet för
nazister samt om den kan begränsas p.g.a. våldsamma motdemonstranter.

I Sverige utgör demonstrationsfriheten en av demokratins hörnstenar och
har grundläggande betydelse för fri åsiktsbildning, utan den anses
demokratin vara en tom form. Argumenten för fri åsiktsbildning måste dock
ställas mot argumenten för bestämmelsen hets mot folkgrupp, 8 kap. 16 §
brottsbalken. Bestämmelsens förarbeten anger att det trots yttrandefrihetens
värde inte finns någon principiell betänklighet att kriminalisera nazistisk
propaganda. I USA menas istället att det inte finns några falska idéer, där är
rasistiska uttalanden likställda med t.ex. argument för högre skatt. Båda
länderna använder sig av Mills sanningsargument samt Meiklejohns
demokratiargument. Skillnaden är dock att Sverige beaktar människovärdet.

Gällande våldsamma motdemonstrationer, så är USA mycket mer
restriktiva. I USA finns ett starkt konstitutionellt motstånd mot häcklarens
veto (Heckler’s veto), begreppet innebär att en upprörd och våldsam
majoritet har möjlighet att tysta en minoritet vars åsikter är allmänt
föraktade. I Sverige finns sedan 1980-talet en möjlighet att vid
bedömningen av demonstrationstillstånd ta hänsyn till den oordning som
uppstår i demonstrationens omedelbara närhet och inte enbart oordning som
uppstår i demonstrationen. Vilket innebär att nazisters demonstrationsfrihet
kan komma att begränsas p.g.a. våldsamma motdemonstranter. (Less)
Abstract
In September 2017, the Nordic Resistance Movement received a permit to
march through Gothenburg, which ignited a big debate in Sweden. A similar
debate was had in 1977 in the United States (U.S.), when a neo-Nazi group
applied for a permit to demonstrate. These events provoke questions; should
the right to demonstrate include neo-Nazi groups? What should the state’s
approach be to violent counter-demonstrations? The purpose of this essay is,
with the help of arguments from the democratic tradition of ideas,
judgements and legislative history, to examine how Sweden and the U.S.
legitimize the right to demonstrate for neo-Nazi groups. This essay also
examines if their right to demonstrate is being limited due to violent
... (More)
In September 2017, the Nordic Resistance Movement received a permit to
march through Gothenburg, which ignited a big debate in Sweden. A similar
debate was had in 1977 in the United States (U.S.), when a neo-Nazi group
applied for a permit to demonstrate. These events provoke questions; should
the right to demonstrate include neo-Nazi groups? What should the state’s
approach be to violent counter-demonstrations? The purpose of this essay is,
with the help of arguments from the democratic tradition of ideas,
judgements and legislative history, to examine how Sweden and the U.S.
legitimize the right to demonstrate for neo-Nazi groups. This essay also
examines if their right to demonstrate is being limited due to violent
counter-demonstrations.

In Sweden the right to demonstrate is seen as one of the corner-stones of its
democracy and is fundamental regarding the freedom of opinion; without
the possibility of free opinion, a democracy is considered an empty shape.
The arguments for freedom of opinion must be weighed against, agitation
against an ethnic or national group (hets mot folkgrupp), 8 chapter 16 §
Penal Code (brottsbalken). In legislative history, it is expressed that
criminalizing neo-Nazi propaganda does not provoke any principled debate
despite the value of free speech. In the U.S. there are no false ideas, the
racist utterings are equal to for example arguments pro higher taxes. Both
the democracies of Sweden and the U.S. are built upon Mill’s ideas of truth
and Meiklejohn’s ideas of democracy; the difference is though that Sweden
takes the human value into account.

Regarding violent counter-demonstrations, the U.S. is more restrictive.
There is strong constitutional opposition towards the Heckler’s veto; that a
violent majority could have the potential to silence a minority whose
opinions are widely despised. Since the 1980’s in Sweden has it been
possible to take into account when permitting a demonstration, the potential
for disorder external to the demonstration itself. Therefore, the right to
demonstrate for neo-Nazi groups can be limited due to the potential for
violent counter-demonstrations. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Nordbring, Lisa LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20172
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
allmän rättslära, jurisprudence, demonstrationsfrihet, förvaltningsrätt (en. administrative law), komparativ rätt (en. comparative law), opinionsfrihet, ordning och säkerhet, statsrätt, USA
language
Swedish
id
8929734
date added to LUP
2018-02-06 12:03:35
date last changed
2018-02-06 12:03:35
@misc{8929734,
  abstract     = {In September 2017, the Nordic Resistance Movement received a permit to
march through Gothenburg, which ignited a big debate in Sweden. A similar
debate was had in 1977 in the United States (U.S.), when a neo-Nazi group
applied for a permit to demonstrate. These events provoke questions; should
the right to demonstrate include neo-Nazi groups? What should the state’s
approach be to violent counter-demonstrations? The purpose of this essay is,
with the help of arguments from the democratic tradition of ideas,
judgements and legislative history, to examine how Sweden and the U.S.
legitimize the right to demonstrate for neo-Nazi groups. This essay also
examines if their right to demonstrate is being limited due to violent
counter-demonstrations.

In Sweden the right to demonstrate is seen as one of the corner-stones of its
democracy and is fundamental regarding the freedom of opinion; without
the possibility of free opinion, a democracy is considered an empty shape.
The arguments for freedom of opinion must be weighed against, agitation
against an ethnic or national group (hets mot folkgrupp), 8 chapter 16 §
Penal Code (brottsbalken). In legislative history, it is expressed that
criminalizing neo-Nazi propaganda does not provoke any principled debate
despite the value of free speech. In the U.S. there are no false ideas, the
racist utterings are equal to for example arguments pro higher taxes. Both
the democracies of Sweden and the U.S. are built upon Mill’s ideas of truth
and Meiklejohn’s ideas of democracy; the difference is though that Sweden
takes the human value into account.

Regarding violent counter-demonstrations, the U.S. is more restrictive.
There is strong constitutional opposition towards the Heckler’s veto; that a
violent majority could have the potential to silence a minority whose
opinions are widely despised. Since the 1980’s in Sweden has it been
possible to take into account when permitting a demonstration, the potential
for disorder external to the demonstration itself. Therefore, the right to
demonstrate for neo-Nazi groups can be limited due to the potential for
violent counter-demonstrations.},
  author       = {Nordbring, Lisa},
  keyword      = {allmän rättslära,jurisprudence,demonstrationsfrihet,förvaltningsrätt (en. administrative law),komparativ rätt (en. comparative law),opinionsfrihet,ordning och säkerhet,statsrätt,USA},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Nazisters demonstrationsfrihet – eller häcklarens veto? - En komparativ studie mellan Sverige och USA},
  year         = {2017},
}