The Helsinki Court of Appeal has found two journalists guilty of disclosing and attempting to disclose national security secrets related to a 2017 article about Finland’s military intelligence. This ruling stands as one of the rare convictions involving journalists accused of compromising national defense information.
Tuomo Pietilainen was sentenced to four months suspended prison time. Laura Halminen received a fine equivalent to 80 day fines. The charges stemmed from their article published in Helsingin Sanomat on December 16, 2017. The story exposed details about the Finnish Defence Forces’ Viestikoekeskus signal intelligence unit.
The court also convicted both journalists of attempting to disclose classified information through unpublished drafts linked to the same investigation. Both denied the accusations.
A third defendant, Kalle Silfverberg, who was a supervising editor at the time, was cleared of all charges.
Prosecutors had requested suspended prison sentences for all three defendants. They argued the article and drafts posed a threat to Finland’s external security and violated secrecy laws.
The appeal court held that the journalists had indeed revealed classified information that threatened national security. The court ruled the public interest did not justify compromising Finland’s external security.
This verdict goes further than a lower court ruling in 2023, which found them guilty only of publishing classified information. The appeal court included attempted disclosure of unpublished content in the conviction.
The court emphasized that the publication and attempts to publish posed a real risk to state security. This risk outweighed the usual protections offered by freedom of speech laws. The judgment made clear that freedom of expression does not cover revealing national defense secrets.
“Freedom of expression did not give the defendants the right to disclose or attempt to disclose these security secrets,” the court stated. “The restriction was necessary and proportionate to protect national security.”
The court upheld a previous order requiring Helsingin Sanomat to remove the original article from its website.
Erja Yläjärvi, editor-in-chief of Helsingin Sanomat, criticized the ruling as a dangerous precedent for journalism. She highlighted concerns that even unpublished drafts can lead to criminal charges.
“The article concerned intelligence laws that affect all Finns. The information was years old and did not harm national security. The Defence Forces were aware of the article beforehand,” Yläjärvi said.
Defense attorneys said they plan to appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court. Timo Ylikantola, representing Pietiläinen, called the extension of the conviction to unpublished drafts a significant issue for investigative journalism.
Ylikantola explained that the ruling complicates journalists’ ability to report on sensitive topics where state secrecy might be involved.
Kai Kotiranta, defense counsel for Halminen, also questioned the clarity of legal boundaries. “Editorial teams need to understand when preparing material crosses into criminal conduct,” he said.
The 2017 article drew on documents tied to military intelligence operations. While some details were publicly accessible, courts found key information came from classified Defence Forces sources.
The legal case started after the Defence Forces filed a criminal complaint on the day the article appeared. They acted as the complainant throughout the trial.
The Court of Appeal noted that senior editors made publication decisions, but the journalists remained responsible for their roles in preparing the material.
Kaius Niemi, the paper’s editor-in-chief at the time, faced no charges. Sanoma Media Finland, publisher of Helsingin Sanomat, tried to overturn the article removal order, but the court rejected the appeal.
This case is a rare example in Finnish law where journalists were convicted on treason-related charges for reporting on national defense matters.
