Don't defame a paedophile in Sweden

[lcakethereforeIam]

I've just read this in the Telegraph

https://archive.ph/08Isb

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/22/woman-taking-on-lax-swedish-paedophile-laws/

I often get Sweden and Switzerland mixed-up so I'm not sure which one the tras come on here to tell us has self id and it has absolutely no problems. If it is Sweden though i can understand one reason why that might be. Such restrictive defamation laws would put off anyone making a complaint.

The woman was found guilty of defamation against the paedophile. Truth not being a defence. Unrepentant she's vowed to carry on 🦸‍♀️

It is astonishing how men with dangerous fetishes are prioritised over children.

The idea that certain powerful people think other people should be prevented from speaking the truth is, however, sadly familiar

It really wouldn’t surprise me if it was Sweden, the original Swedish title for “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” in Swedish translates directly to Men Who Hate Women and it strongly comes across that this is deeply culturally embedded.

It's definitely Sweden. The Telegraph can distinguish it from Switzerland, mixing them up is a me problem.

I'd be interested to know if the fine was on the low side, particularly harsh or neither. It might indicate nothing though, perhaps the judge doesn't have much discretion.

Wasn't there a woman in the UK who was told off for being "untoward about paedophiles"? It's a phrase that sticks in my mind but I'm buggered if I can remember who it was. Like Pratchett's Detritus, my brain grinds to a halt in the heat...

I realise what sort of reaction this will get, so I'll put my hard hat on, but I'm with the Swedish courts on this.

"Mr Grey" is quite clearly an abhorrent individual.

That does not mean that other members of the public can disregard all laws and harass him, or commit any other crime against him, without repercussions. The law doesn't stop applying to you just because the object of your behaviour is a nonce.

We and Sweden have a court system and is not the job of the public to dispense summary justice.

If "Mr Grey" commits a crime then he should be dealt with by the proper legal process.

Vigilantes and paedophile hunters are highly problematic and in many cases actually jeopardise police cases, meaning these people are left to walk the street. She's not a superhero, she's actively making it more difficult for the authorities to prosecute these people.

Finchie, my issue is more that this is the law in the first place. If someone behaves a certain way, they shouldn’t be able to assume that nobody will mention it, especially when there is clear proof. Surely that’s a normal, and frankly beneficial, way that human society polices itself?

Her behaviour goes far beyond "mentioning"; she didn't just make an off-the-cuff comment about it in a conversation with a friend.

She posted on social media, publicly. It's the modern day equivalent of printing off a thousand posters and sticking them everywhere down the high street.

I would not say it's beneficial that society policies itself, no, given that we've seen the end result of that only recently in Ireland with innocent families being burnt out of their homes.

You don't have to look very hard for numerous stories of innocent people wrongly targeted by vigilante / paedophile hunter groups.

recently in Ireland with innocent families being burnt out of their homes

eh? When? Where?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cevl9j9y8dmo

Sudanese migrant attacks a man in the street. Riots to drive out all the "foreigners" to get justice ensue.

But he wasn't innocent. She had text messages of what he wanted to do to her children and video of him meeting up to arrange to do it.

I didn't say he was innocent morally, or a nice person. I literally called him abhorrent and appalling, because he is.

He is however innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law.

And again I will point out that the law does not cease to apply to you just because the object of your behaviour is a nonce.

I get the point. I did live near Paulsgrove when paediatrician's house was set fire to by an ignorant mob back in the 70s

Loyalist Belfast would deny being 'Ireland'. They usually burn out Catholics.

I agree - same mindset, different targets.

FinchiePink - I don't see much similarity between potentially murderous arson attacks by racist thugs, and women using social media - whether legally or illegally - to warn parents about a man who has expressed a wish to harm children.

With his own words and actions to show that he wanted to make that wish a reality.

I didn't say it was similar, I said it was a good example of why I don't wish to see society policing itself.

Yes, it was Kellie Jay Keen. Two police officers visited her home for the 'offence' of being untoward about paedophiles.

Taken from The Times - Following public backlash, Wiltshire Police—a force already under special measures for failing the public at the time—subsequently admitted that the officers' visit to Keen's home was "not wholly appropriate"

So when a member of public pretends to be under age it can’t be used as evidence but when the police do it it can be. Wouldn’t it be better to push and campaign for the police to run more stings so they can actually do something with the evidence?

Society has to police itself. Drive on the correct side of the road, stop when the traffic lights turn red, pick up other people's litter, throw a lifebelt to a person id difficulty. If you turn all the control over to people in uniform you're in deep trouble.

Do you think the N.I. police are culpable for the arson because they released a statement saying the suspect was a Sudanese immigrant? If not, why should 'Angeliqa' be culpable for any harm other people might do to 'Grey' because they now know he's a nonce? The only law she's broken is one that says you can't tell the truth about people if it shows them in bad light - which is a bonkers law. In any case all anyone seems to have done is shun him, which is presumably quite legal even in Sweden.

She's not culpable for the harm other people may do.

She's only culpable for her own actions, which amount to defamation under Swedish law.

But three of those four options you've picked are governed by law, not by society...

This

I've seen videos of paedophile hunters apprehending despicable men caught red handed using similar stings. It gives immense satisfaction seeing them so shocked and shitting a brick. The hunters then hand over to the police and are charged, but as we've seen the sentencing is often pitiful. They can crawl out of a rock and reoffend over and over. The hunters are providing a valued service in my opinion. The evidence is clear so why not name and shame.

When a society loses faith and trust in the police and authorities to protect the vulnerable then self justice takes over.

The only similarity, imo, is if the man in the BBC article had filmed the person threatening to burn down his house and been fined for posting the footage on social media.