When this case first came out, I was talking to a relatively senior Finnish journalist about freedom of the press in Finland. We came to the conclusion that Finland's then best in the world ranking on press freedom was entirely down to the fact that the press had never wanted anything that the government wasn't ok with having in the papers. This decision is broadly incompatible with freedom of expression. Prosecuting folks who agreed to keep state secrets is one thing. Accusing journalists of treason, let alone convicting them, for publishing material that in their professional opinion was newsworthy is completely unacceptable. The Finnish national security bureaucracy does and must not be above the constraints of international human rights law, and must not be permitted to either constrain a priori or decide post hoc what is in the national interests. I assume this will be appealed and that the Finnish Supreme Court (or, failing them, the European Court of Human Rights) does the right thing. This case has already caused a significant chilling effect on Finnish journalism — already not in a great position — and this is happening at a time when Finland's national security position and responsibilities are changing rapidly. We need transparency and accountability in the national security bureaucracy now more than ever.

https://yle.fi/a/74-20170451