Proposals to confiscate income from convicted cultural creators raise questions about freedom of expression

The proposal to tax the income from the cultural production of convicted criminals is probably just a desperate move in the final stages of a tough election campaign, but if we allow ourselves to take it seriously for a moment, it is in a way quite breathtaking.

The former co-founder of the "Centre for Justice", Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer (M), together with other Tidö parties on Aftonbladet's debate page, proposes that a new investigation should look at how to prevent "people with a criminal background in some cases from being able to build careers and earn big money by portraying their own criminality". They suggest that the proposal is primarily about cultural creators with gang connections, but the net still seems to be cast wide. It is actually unclear if it is only Yasin they intend to fish out, or if they happen to rake in the Allra founder and right-wing influencer Alexander Ernstberger in the by-catch.

After all, he is also a convicted criminal, with large compensation claims against him, who has written a book in which he justifies his criminal actions. From the beginning, he had transferred the income from it to a related company, which clearly illustrates a fundamental problem, i.e. that the author can quite easily direct the income to other companies - even abroad - in order to avoid it being taken over.

But Strömmer did not think of Ernstberger.

It is more likely that Strömmer was thinking of, for example, Sebbe Stakset, the convicted member of the group Kartellen who, after serving his sentence, reasonably earned some money from books, media appearances and lectures for schoolchildren. The crux here is that Stakset has become a Christian, preaches a message of love and wants to deter young people from the path of crime.

How do you write a law that makes a distinction between edifying stories about past criminality or a glorification of gang life? It requires very sharp legal minds, if that is even possible. It is likely that you will quickly run into problems with the Freedom of the Press Ordinance and the Freedom of Expression Act, and will also challenge the freedom of business itself when society claims the revenue.

Håkan Nesser is another convicted cultural worker. Say he mentions his time at Asptuna Institution in an upcoming novel. Should his earnings then be confiscated? Should the state also tax him on royalties for new editions of previous books that are actually about crime?

No, that was probably not the idea. Rather, it is quite possible that Strömmer was angry at various local rappers who wrote texts glorifying violence about drugs and expensive brands. The problem is that you don't know if they committed the crimes they rap about, but they may have gone there on some fine crime. Should their income still be collected by the state? And above all: which body will sit and do all these reviews that distinguish between fact and fiction, between moral edification and encouragement of crime, between the height of work and artistic freedom?

It doesn't really sound like Strömmer knows what a liberal society is anymore. Or he knows it but happily signs everything that Henrik Vinge (SD), chairman of the justice committee, puts forward.