Freedom of expression is a (legal) weapon
I was struck by your column last Saturday, in which you explained that a gun made using a 3D printer could be considered a weapon and that, without authorisation, you risked criminal sanctions. However, I had heard of the case of a journalist who had made such a gun but had not been convicted. What exactly is the situation?
Gisèle
The case you mention does exist and was the subject of a ruling by the Federal Court on 12 December 2024 on a very interesting subject: the contradiction between two legal provisions.
Printed weapon
In 2019, as part of a report aimed at demonstrating how easy it was to obtain 3D-printed weapons, a journalist from Radio Télévision Suisse (RTS) downloaded the construction plans for such a weapon from the internet, and then requested quotes online from people offering 3D printing services in French-speaking Switzerland. This is how she received the parts of the weapon at her office and assembled them there. At the end of March 2019, this journalist did apply to the Geneva cantonal police for an exceptional authorisation for her process, but this could not be issued in time. At the beginning of April 2019, she nonetheless transported the pistol - without firing pin or ammunition - by train from Geneva to Lausanne, where she spoke to a specialist on the subject of 3D printed weapons. Having discovered this behaviour through the report, the criminal authorities took action...
At cantonal level, the Criminal Division found the journalist guilty of violating the Federal Weapons Act (LArm) by transporting the weapon in question and fined her CHF 1,500 under Article 33.
Freedom of expression
However, the Federal Court ruled that this conviction for breaches of the LArm was not compatible with the freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which also includes freedom of the media and the press. According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, a sanction in such a case was not necessary in a democratic society, nor did it meet a pressing social need. Our Supreme Court also referred to Article 14 of the Swiss Penal Code, which states that a person must be considered to be behaving lawfully when he or she acts as the law commands or permits, even if he or she commits an act punishable under another law.
As a result, the journalist received a full acquittal, even though she had done something prohibited.
