In 2008, an angry crowd gathered to criticize policies of the Korean government. While the original agenda of the candle vigil was to stop US beef imports, it later started to mock other policies of the Lee administration. During this provocative period, numerous mass media organizations were restricted to issue content which may damage the reputation of the current government. Several broadcasting companies, including MBC and YTN, were heavily controlled to prevent publicizing content that might raise opposition of the policies. However, several producers and journalists made attempts to do this. As a result, they were tried and prosecuted, and later were suspended or relegated by their companies.

The following year, important questions rose in Korea, with the establishment of the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) and the Korea Communications Standards Commission (KCSC), in February 2008 when several acts came in. The general public was skeptical about the independence of those organizations. The former group is empowered and under direct control of the executive office and the latter’s commission officers are selected by the president, after having been nominated from other government sectors.

In 2012, the worker’s unions of several mass media companies, once again, protested against the government’s actions. The unions claim that they are faced with unreasonable restriction from the government, and stated that those legal actions are unconstitutional. The protests also included issue of ‘nak-ha-san’, or ‘parachute’ in English, meaning appointed by orders from above, which put a stop to controversial issues being aired.

The place for freedom of expression in Korea is also said to be decreasing. According to the recent striking confession from Chang Jin-Soo, a former ethics official at the Prime Minister Office, the executive office initiated surveillance on civilians. Chang disclosed words about the executive office’s illegal acts and admitted his involvement in the cover up. The surveillance was put on some individuals who criticized the government. The case was closed by the prosecutor’s office back in 2010, due to insufficient evidence. Currently, the link between the Blue House and surveillance on citizens is being reinvestigated.

In another case, a popular podcast co-host, Chung Bong-Ju, was sentenced to one year in prison. Chung gained his fame through exposing unconfirmed information about the current administration, as an exposure of corrupt politicians from a former lawmaker. The show became one of the most downloaded podcast from iTunes, called ‘Na-nuem Ggom-su-da’, or “I am a Pretty-Minded Creep.”The show presented several suspicions and accused conservative political party members, including the president, of involvement in illegal acts. Although some of the statements were later found to be true, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the prosecutor’s office and said Chung violated several laws when he spread these rumors.

Along with the alleged government interference in surveillance on citizens and Chung’s conviction for publicizing rumors about politicians, other several cases drew attention from other nations. Since President Lee took the office, considerable reforms were made. Whether the purpose of such changes is to increase the welfare of the public, UN Human Rights Commission showed concerns about the deterioration of the freedom of speech and expression in Korea.

Freedom of Expression, Speech, and Press

Shrinking Place for the Press

It is not the first time that the issue of the press being restricted by the government has been brought up. Before the multi-political system was adopted in the late 1980s, the military was in full control of political affairs in the nation. During these periods, an authoritarian government restricted the press from publishing certain content that might bring opposition of the general public towards the government. With rebellious movements and voices for democracy, Korea successfully achieved the goal of being a democratic nation. However, since 2008, international concerns grew as the restriction on the media became tighter.

In Korea, the media actively reports on issues for the health of the public, including stories that criticize politicians. However, the autonomy and independence of such media organizations are said to be in jeopardy after the Newspaper and the Broadcasting Act. This suggestion, combined with the ‘parachute’ controversies, suggests that the national status on the freedom of press has taken a slide back to 3 decades ago.

According to the “Freedom of the Press 2011 Report" from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, South Korea’s status fell from free to partly free. The downgrade showed official censorship was the largest problem. Along with online censorship, the government's involvement in mass media was also observed. Moreover, in the ranking of the Reporters Without Boarders, “Press Freedom Index 2011/2012”. South Korea fell to 44th in 2011, where it was 31st in 2006, during the period of the late President Roh Moo-Hyun. From the index, South Korea remains behind developing countries, such as Ghana and South Africa.

In June 2009, four producers and one writer were arrested for defaming the government with program content about US beef imports. The program, in 2008, directly accused the government of negligently forming the Free Trade Agreement with the US. With the program, the fear of mad cow disease swept the nation and created weeks of protests.

The controversy of the prosecution of these journalists did not remain as a simple question. It was discovered that the investigation process invaded individual privacy by searching through personal e-mails and the use of other explicit measures. The producers and writer counter-sued the prosecutor's office for invading their privacy.

In relation to the ‘parachute’ controversies, national networks’ workers unions admitted that they have not served as a true media, but were forced to deliver information that was not impartial to the public. The pressure from political powers and large conglomerates to censor content has been pointed out. The most problematical voice was the tendency of several heads of media organizations to favor conservative political parties.

Only a little more than a week ago, President Obama, of the United States, met with President Lee for the official arrival ceremony in the Blue House. While this event drew attention of both nations as well as others, it was discovered that journalists were denied access to enter the Blue House. A spokesman from the White House permitted the group to cover President Obama's actions, but was later blocked by Korean government security. Although the reason for this action remains a mystery, invading the freedom of press (that was even authorized by the United States) and stopping reports from the start-off at an event such as the Nuclear Security Summit 2012, should be explained.

Vague Laws Limits Freedom of Speech and Expression

On May 2010, the Special Rapporteur visited South Korea. Frank La Rue entered the nation with an official invitation from the government, regarding concerns whether the freedom of speech and expression is being properly protected or not.

After the visit, Frank La Rue raised concerns about the vagueness of several acts and their appropriateness. Moreover, he suggested the importance of the right to speech and expression outweighed the purpose of the acts restricting or limiting such freedom, and asked the government for a revision of these acts.

The first issue that raised concerns relates to the defamation law. The Criminal Act includes “crimes against reputation”, which prohibits a person from publicly harming another's reputation. A person who fails to do so, may be subjected to a fine or imprisonment. The only acceptable case is when the information is true and solely for the public's interest.

In November last year, one comedian, Choi Hyo-Jong, faced a law suit from one politician. The charge accused Choi of insulting law makers, due to his satirical statements about ‘how to become a lawmaker.’

The comedy started with “If you want to become a lawmaker, be close to the ruling party leadership and bring 200 million won.” He later continued with how to act during the campaign period, also making satirical comments. During the show, loud applause and wild cheers came from the audience. The media reported that this show reflected how the public felt about the lawmakers and suggested dramatic changes are needed in the National Assembly.

However, Kang Yong-Seok, a Mapo district lawmaker, felt otherwise. He filed a lawsuit against the comedian for insulting and defaming the lawmakers. After it was made public, Kang brought anger and criticism from well-known celebrities and netizens on the Internet. Kang was forced to retract the lawsuit after some “tormenting” moments.

The incident left the public surprised. While defamation is a well-established criminal act, its application is quite undefined and very broad. Moreover, one of the reasons that Kang’s actions were attacked was because he was a politician. Public officials are subjected to heavy criticism, when it promotes the progressive policies. However, when individuals face constant lawsuits from them, it is likely that such statements are discouraged.

International professionals also pointed out that the Framework Act may reduce the place for freedom of expression. Such regulations restrict individuals to not “publicly make a false communication over the telecommunications facilities and equipment for the purpose of harming the public interest” and the acts serves to “promote welfare through the effective management of telecommunications and promotion of their development.”

On the UN report from the Special Rapportuer, Frank La Rue, expressed concerns about the terms in the Act as being ambiguous. “Harming the public interest” and “false communication” was pointed out and he asked the government for further revision. Even the Constitutional Court ruled that the terms in the Act are vague, and that no clear measure was made by the lawmakers.

The Network Act deals with similar issues. The Act focuses on the guide “information and communication networks should be used in a sounder and safer way.” Due to such law, YouTube and Google complied with the government’s recommendations and set up a censorship on Korean sites.

The power that KCSC and KCC hold over online content seems less on the paper than it is in reality. While the Act stipulates that the organizations should “recommend” the websites to erase or block the contents, failing to comply with such “recommendations” can lead to a monetary penalty. Few critics stated that that word from KCSC is not a recommendation, but rather an order. In addition, when an individual's posting is blocked, they have no accessible way to file an objection. It was suggested that online content is vulnerable to the government's restrictions on an individual's freedom of expression.

It is true that the Internet is a place where acts of crime can be facilitated and transferred to another. However, the scope of such a regulation in other areas remains in question. Expressions and opinions that may offend and criticize others are on the list to be deleted. Moreover, the law does not follow the ex post facto law, meaning that contents posted long before the implementation of the Act are also subjected to be deleted.

Because the internet service providers carry the burden of paying fines if the demands are not met, they are also under pressure to delete content that they conceive as inappropriate. Frank La Rue showed the concern about the vagueness of the limitation on such censorship and recommended the government to repeal all provisions of the Act.

Choi Yun-Seong(Reporter)

Paulc0615@kookmin.ac.kr