I believe this case was already discussed here or there but it will be useful to provide some more details and perspective.
The 7-13 December 2020 midweek meeting program included parts appallingly titled “Love for Jehovah Stronger Than Love for Family” and “We Show Love by Supporting Jehovah’s Discipline”
on the topic of shunning. Jari-Pekka Peltoniemi, a local exJW activist,
accessed the congregation meeting via JWStream and posted an article
on it, publishing facial images and voice recordings of two elders
(altered nearly two weeks later) without revealing their names. Note: please have in mind that Google translates the Finnish word relating to shunning as "map learning" and "mapping."
A
prosecution followed, and Mr. Peltoniemi was charged under
ch. 24, sec. 8 of the Criminal Code with dissemination of private
information - namely, "identity, image and religious beliefs" of the
elders. The trial court acquitted
him, noting that while elders weren't "persons in politics, business,
public office or public position, or in a comparable position," by the
virtue of their holding positions of power in a local congregation they
weren't supposed to keep their religion in secret. And while the facial
images and the sound recordings certainly constituted private
information, and their publication was unauthorized, it acceptably
contributed to a debate of general interest relating to shunning and spiritual violence in general. Therefore, freedom of expression outweighed privacy concerns, and no crime was committed.
That decision was, however, reversed by the Helsinki Court of Appeal. Its main findings are:
first, religious beliefs of the elders were known only to congregation members, meeting attendees and members of general public they choose to encounter during preaching work. Holding no position of leadership or representation on the national level and no influence over JW teachings, from the point of view of the general public they were merely private individuals. Publishing information about their beliefs on the Internet deprived of the "right to disclose information belonging to the core area of their private life in such a way and to the extent they decide;"
second, although the article concerned the matter of general interest, disclosing the elders' private information was totally unnecessary to address its subject, as proved by the fact the article is still available, with faces blurred and voices altered. In light of the latter fact, the court declined to order removal of the article.
The activist was sentenced to pay €320 in fines, nearly €2,000 in damages, and nearly €20,000 in legal fees. He is apparently a pensioner, so this is a hard blow for him, and he decided to retire from activist work. Mr. Peltoniemi appealed his conviction before the Supreme Court. There is a fundraiser you can easily find.
To put the things into context, it was Mr. Peltoniemi who in 2011 initiated
the door-to-door note taking saga which resulted in the org losing in
the EU Court and changing its fieldwork practices in Europe. He provided
the Data Protection Ombudsman with detailed information and
documentation, first requesting the inquiry and then supplementing his
complaint and commenting on the branch office's responses, sending at
least five letters in one year. So they're apparently holding grudge on
him now.