Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-180"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-11-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021120.3.3-180"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-11-20-Speech-3-1812
lpv:speaker	lp:Andersson, Färm, Hedkvist Petersen, Hulthén, Karlsson, Theorin (PSE )2
lpv:translated text	". We, the Swedish Social Democrats behind this explanation of vote, would like to present our motive for voting against Amendment No 17, regarding Article 2 b, which is that the definition of advertising cannot be implemented under Swedish law. The definition of advertising as commercial communications cannot be reconciled with the Constitution of Sweden/Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. We would rather see use of the definition 'commercial advertising', which would allow us to continue to exempt tobacco advertising from freedom of expression without changing the constitution. As the term commercial communications is a broader concept which also includes product placement, it conflicts with the Swedish Constitution. The term commercial advertising does not include editorial texts, opinion advertising, product placement, artistic expression and all other forms of marketing which are not part of an advertisement. It is therefore not possible under Swedish law to ban tobacco advertising in ‘commercial communications’ or ‘commercial statements’ without first changing the constitution. In addition, we believe that the public health perspective must be given a clearer and stronger role with regard to the internal market. When it comes to weighing up competition against public health, we believe that health must be prioritised over economic interests."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph