You mentioned that @SuomenPoliisi prohibited you from discussing matters related to the investigation. Did the police explain what this prohibition is based on? According to Section 5 of Chapter 11 of the Preliminary Investigation Act, a prohibition must be given in writing and formally communicated. It must specify the subject of the prohibition, the duration of the prohibition, and the potential penalties. The prohibition can only relate to matters that have come to light in the investigation, which do not concern the prohibited person themselves and which they did not previously know. Moreover, their disclosure must additionally be able to complicate the investigation or cause harm or disadvantage to someone. What was such a matter in this case? The investigation concerns a message that has already been published. The suspect's own suspicion of a crime, their own message, and what the police have reported regarding their status concern the suspect themselves. The prohibition does not extend to them, nor does Paragraph 2 of Section 23 of the Publicity Act, which only pertains to confidential information regarding other individuals obtained as parties involved. The police must also clarify the content of the confidentiality obligation (ETL 11:6). Was that done? If the police prohibited the recording of the interrogation or the publication of its content, what is the legal basis for the restriction, and what information does it pertain to? If the suspect cannot record, will the police record it themselves? The interrogation must be recorded when the method of its conduct should be able to be verified later (ETL 9:3). In this matter, the basis is evident. The suspect has the right to remain silent. You can refuse to answer until the binding nature, basis, and scope of the prohibition have been clarified (and, of course, otherwise as well). You do not have to guess the limits of an ambiguous prohibition. The police do not need to allow the publication of all material in advance. But if an authority claims that revealing information is punishable, the basis and subject of the prohibition must be specified. If it was a request, it should not be presented as an obligation, and such a request can always be met with a mocking belly laugh. (translated)
