A young woman who warned others about a man convicted of a sexual offense against a child has herself been convicted of aggravated defamation. The Court of Appeal upheld the verdict, and the woman must pay SEK 30,000 in damages to the man—a decision that has now sparked a growing debate about Swedish defamation law.

The family behind the woman has decided to come forward publicly. At the same time, the organization Förtalsstödet has become involved in the case, and the family now hopes the case will be tried by the European Court of Human Rights.

The case raises a legal question that has long been discussed in Sweden: how far does the right to warn others about a person previously convicted of a serious crime extend, and when does such a warning itself become a crime?

ALSO READ: Sweden Democrats want defamation law reformed before discussions of harsher penalties

The now 19-year-old woman, Natalie, was 17 years old when in the spring of 2025 she wrote a message in a group chat with about twenty people connected to a shared leisure activity. There, she drew the other members’ attention to the fact that one of the members had previously been convicted of a sexual offense against a child.

According to Natalie, the purpose was not to single out the man but for others to know about his background after she once again encountered him in the activity. Shortly thereafter, she was reported to the police by the man.

Previous conviction was the starting point

The background to the dispute is a 2022 conviction in which the man in question was found guilty of sexual molestation of a 13-year-old girl. He himself was 17 at the time of the offense and was convicted after admitting to the acts on which the charges were based.

Natalie knew the victimized girl and testified during the trial. Several years later, she encountered the convicted man again through a shared leisure activity. This led her to write a message in the activity’s group chat.

ALSO READ: After Samnytt’s articles: Prime Minister wants to see reform of defamation law

According to Natalie, the intention was to inform others that the man had previously been convicted of a sexual offense, not to disclose any further details about the previous conviction.

The man himself was a member of the group chat and saw the message. Shortly afterwards, he reported Natalie for defamation, which was the beginning of the legal process that later led to her own conviction.

Court: The intent to warn was not sufficient

Both the district court and the court of appeal found that the information Natalie provided about the man’s previous conviction was correct. Therefore, the decisive issue in the case was not whether the information was true, but whether it was legally defensible to share it. The courts concluded it was not.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling emphasized that the intent to warn others does not, in itself, make the dissemination justifiable. The court also pointed out that several years had passed since the previous crime occurred and considered that, taking all circumstances together, there was not sufficient support for passing on the information in the way it was done.

The district court also determined that the offense should be classified as aggravated defamation. The reason was not so much how many people received the information, but rather that it was distributed within a limited group where the man could be easily identified and where the information was deemed likely to have significant impact on his personal reputation.

When the case was reviewed by the court of appeal, the verdict was upheld. However, the sentence was changed from community service to a daily fine. The SEK 30,000 in damages to the man was maintained.

“Part of me still hasn’t really processed it. It feels unreal, like being in a movie,” Natalie told Expressen.

Family wants the law tested

After the Court of Appeal’s decision, Natalie and her family have chosen to speak openly about the legal proceedings. They argue that the case highlights a problem with Sweden’s defamation legislation and hope it will lead to a change in the law.

The case has been reported to the Chancellor of Justice and the organization Förtalsstödet has become involved. A fundraising campaign has also been launched to help the family pay the damages.

The family says the next step may be to try to have the matter considered by the European Court of Human Rights. They believe there should be greater scope to warn others about individuals already convicted of serious crimes.

At the same time, the case has sparked a broader discussion about how Sweden’s defamation law should be applied. Under current law, even true statements can result in a conviction if the court considers their disclosure unjustifiable. In making that assessment, public interest, the intent of sharing the information, and the harm publication may cause the identified person are weighed against each other.

“It’s downright disturbing that a person trying to warn her friends about a convicted sex offender could end up in jail for two years. It’s absolutely bizarre. I’m ashamed of Sweden’s laws,” Natalie’s mother Elisabeth told Expressen.

ALSO READ: Ekeroth: ‘Good that the Sweden Democrats do not want to toughen penalties for defamation’