I agree that this is potentially very problematic, but the article linked paints a distorted picture of what the actual amendment entails. This isn't something that will help prosecutors go after your average Swedish citizen that decides to make slanderous statements online, but rather something that will help prosecutors have a case against people who are widely published and are in a position where they can very easily slander someone. It's not green-lighting a police state where Swedish authorities can now suddenly go after anyone who says anything bad about anyone online. It's an amendment that acknowledges internet publications are just as valid as any other type of publication, that defamation is very much a part of that too, and that there needs to be a way to curtail and prosecute people who are in a position of power, and who can benefit greatly from slandering their detractors.
The European Daily News article makes it sound like it's simply an attack on civil liberty and freedom of the press - and I agree that these things should be defended at all costs. But bear in mind that this is an article with a sensationalistic byline specifically intended to draw up controversy, and probably not representative of the actual amendment itself. Keep in mind that the people who describe the amendment as a "new law to make it easier to prosecute those who insult immigrants, politicians" could very well be in the business of defamation themselves, and could have very good reason to not want this amendment to pass.
I'm not saying that's definitely the case, but I am saying we should always be skeptical of articles like this and read up on the actual amendment itself, because these kind of articles almost always come from a biased publication. Defamation can actually be a very harmful thing, and it can ruin careers and cost people untold amounts of money.
Here's a recent article on defamation that I thought was pretty interesting:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/o...-of-defamation