You start by adding an exception saying "holocaust denial is a crime", then it expands to generic "hate speech laws", then it expands to anything that can be described as 'harrasment' or 'bullying words', and now we're at the stage where we can't talk about the flaws in a security product designed to protect media?
Heck anything else they want to ban? Can I discuss Nokia book value per share in Finland?
See suppose they list their DRM technology as an intangible asset in the book value (like software patent of DLLs etc).
If that technology is flawed, then that valuation is flawed. Wouldn't you be deceiving investors about the value of your intangible assets, by suppressing discussion of it's flaws? Are they not entitled to know the true value of those assets, including discussion of the flaws in things contributing to those intangible assets?
And people who license the DRM, wouldn't they also be deceived about it's security, by suppressing discussion of the flaws? It seems that one group would know about the flaws, and another group wouldn't because discussion between the two groups is suppressed.
Is somehow deception for commercial gain approved in Finland? I don't think it is, flawed products should be exposed as flawed, the burden is on the security product maker, to make it secure.