“I have such strong concerns that the bill will become a bill that denies itself the noble values that the Democratic Party has fought and struggled with. Is this bill really democratic? will."
(2021. 8. 10 National Assembly Culture Committee)
People's Power Rep. Yoon Sang-hyun's remarks were close to asking if the Democratic Party, which had been emphasizing freedom of expression, would have supported it if it were an opposition party.
Democrats did not respond properly to this statement.
Democratic Party lawmaker Jeon Jeon-gi and others have argued that the current bill is for the people and that it is democratic because of it, but it is questionable whether there was any reverberation.
Did the Democratic Party in the past favored the revision of the Media Arbitration Act?
Of course, the opposite question is also possible.
If the power of the people opposing the current media arbitration law amendment had been the ruling party and had a majority of the seats in the National Assembly, this law would not have been promoted.
Was it not the power of the people who tried to take control of the media during the MB and Park Geun-hye administrations?
If the power of the people with a history had been the ruling party and the majority party, would they not have taken the lead in passing the amendment to the Media Arbitration Act as it is now?
No one can deny the current problems of the media and the need for reform.
No one opposes the need to prevent damage to citizens from false information and create a healthy public opinion environment.
However, good intentions do not guarantee good results.
As it is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, what is more important than good intentions is to produce positive results.
The Democratic Party and the Attributes of Power Not to Abolish the 'Anti-Terrorism Act'
What academia, civil society, and the media are demanding is deliberation for positive results.
The goal is to create a proper law for citizens and a law that minimizes the possibility of abuse.
For this, it is necessary to understand the nature of power, as Rep. Yoon Sang-hyun said earlier that 'no matter which party comes to power, the temptation will not be shaken off'.
As the Democratic Party, which had been filibustering for a long time against the enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Act as an opposition party, became the ruling party and majority party, it is necessary to question the nature of power and minimize the possibility of abuse, just as they tried to add provisions related to infectious diseases, let alone repeal the law.
Even within the Democratic Party, the possibility of abuse by power was raised.
Democratic presidential primary candidate Doo - Gwan Kim candidate camp side in connection with the Press Arbitration Amendment
"fear punitive damages I japeulkka the progressive media,"
said,
"is that rich people Jinan litigation, and can be a weapon-wielding spree,"
said Pace said in the North.
He also
wrote,
"There is a fear that, even if the government changes, they will try to dry the seeds of progressive media through punitive damages
.
"
It is a statement that emphasizes the self-confidence that this will not happen under the current administration, but it is a core concern of the academic community and others.
Who is the Democratic Party's amendment to the Media Arbitration Act for?
Academia and others agree with the purpose of the law, but are also concerned that the current reforms are being used strategically.
Is the Democratic Party using the amendment to the Media Arbitration Act as a way to avoid criticism due to the fact that the real estate policy is rising sharply despite repeated policies and the failure to supply vaccines, and to appeal to the core supporters who view the established media as objects of hatred? will be
In many ways, this suspicion is based on the position of the Democratic Party, which has changed to the pre-motherland crisis.
If reform is used as a political tool, it is also due to concerns that the reform cannot avoid the vicious cycle of changing camps and becoming the subject of reform.
In particular, there is concern that if politics exceed the law, the law will be applied arbitrarily, and the damage will inevitably fall on the citizens.
In this respect, what is needed for real reform is consistency.
(Reference article: [Report File] Prerequisites for 'Prosecution Reform' and 'Media Reform', [Report File] Camp Logic and Selective Perception… What the Fatherland Situation Left behind)
Democrats' attitude toward media reports that have lost 'coherence'
At the time of the investigation into the state-run nongdan and corruption, the Democratic Party poured out comments on the premise that the media reports were factual.
He also praised the reports of some media outlets that led the report on Gukjeong Nongdan.
However
, many of the media reports at the time contained some misinformation.
According to the current revision of the Media Arbitration Act promoted by the Democratic Party, it is likely to fall under the presumption of 'clear intention or gross negligence' as it falls under 'manipulative reporting' and 'damage that is difficult to recover', and as a result, punitive damages may be required. have.
'MBC's report on Channel A' and 'The Hankyoreh's report on suspicion of hosting Yun Seok-yeol's villa in Wonju', which the Democratic Party used politically, are also highly likely to be subject to punitive damages according to the current amendment.
However, I have not heard of such reports among the examples that the Democratic Party said that the revision of the Media Arbitration Act is necessary to recover from the damage caused by media reports.
If you want real reform, you have to talk about reform for everyone, not the disadvantages of the camp.
However, the Democrats and, by extension, the Open Democrats did not.
Kim Eui-gyeom, a member of the Open Democratic Party, was embarrassed to answer the question of former Dongyang University professor Jin Joong-kwon about whether 'MBC Channel A reports' on CBS Radio's <Bout> are subject to punitive damages according to the current media arbitration law amendment. It was a symbolic scene in terms of 'reform for all'.
Amends the bill several times in a month... “Read the minutes of the meeting and tell me.”
Another thing to note about the revision of the Media Arbitration Act is the Democratic Party's attitude toward the legislation.
August 10,
the national force lawmakers Kim Seung-soo
was in the hall above Parliament stylistic
"Can an inevitable reason should be passed this law (Press Arbitration amendments) the month of August,"
asked he.
It was a question about why the bill was pushed to pass even when the content of the bill was changed several times within a month.
Rep
.
Park Jeong,
secretary of the Democratic Party's Cultural Affairs
Committee
, responded
"because it
took a
long time"
.
A related bill was proposed last year and has been discussed for a long time, so the purpose was to pass it quickly.
The argument to this effect also came from the Democratic Party's side at the Culture and Culture Committee meeting on August 17th.
However, the
Democratic Party lawmakers could not refute the words of Rep. Kim Seung-soo, who
said
,
"(The issue) was newly introduced a month ago and the discussion is starting"
and
"Please read the minutes and tell me
."
A bill that even powerful Democrats didn't understand
The amendment to the Media Arbitration Act passed the subcommittee on July 27, when an alternative committee different from the previously proposed bill was created during the sub-committee's bill review process of the National Assembly. Afterwards, the Democratic Party revised the bill on August 17 and submitted it on the day of the Standing Committee meeting, and on August 18, during the agenda adjustment committee meeting only attended by the Democratic Party and the Open Democratic Party, the bill was revised again. The key issues were revised twice in just three weeks.
Perhaps because the bill was made in such a hurry, people in responsible positions within the Democratic Party did not fully understand the content of the bill.
Former Prime Minister Lee Nak-yeon
, a powerful Democratic presidential contender and strong supporter of the passage of the media arbitration law,
responded to a question from the moderator on CBS Radio's <Kim Hyun-jung's News Show>, saying, "There are criticisms of why YouTube, which accounts for the majority of fake news, is not regulated."
"Is YouTube supposed to be excluded there?"
answered. This means that they have strongly supported the amendment to the Media Arbitration Act without fully understanding the bill.
Rep.
Kim Yong
-
min, who
has
been deeply involved in the revision of the Media Arbitration Act as chairman of the Democratic Party's Media Committee,
said
at a meeting of the Supreme Council yesterday,
"The Media Arbitration Act, which passed the Culture and
Culture Committee, made
it impossible for politicians like Yoon Seok-yeol to pay punitive damages
.
"
But, that's not true.
The amendment to the Media Arbitration Act passed by the Culture and Culture Committee excludes only incumbents and candidates (nominees and appointees) from claiming punitive damages.
Ex-Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol, former Prime Ministers Lee Nak-yeon and Jeong Se-kyun, former Justice Minister Chu Mi-ae, and former National Assembly member Yoo Seung-min can claim punitive damages according to the amendment to the Media Arbitration Act.
What kind of article is 'corresponding article'?
The current amendment, which contains a lot of ambiguous words, was pushed in hastily and without deliberation, and sometimes changed to a more obscure direction.
One of the four high-ranking gross negligence presumption clauses, which was finally summarized into four, is 'a case in
which an article corresponding to a
correction or a follow-up report is
reproduced or cited without a separate sufficient verification process'.
Although 'sufficient verification' itself is ambiguous,
what does
'an article corresponding to the correction information'
mean?
Are you referring to an article that has been revised, or an article that has been the subject of revision?
If we look at the context of the discussion, it would be referring to 'the previous article that was the subject of revision information', but it is not clear from the content of the bill alone.
The
'article before the revision, etc.'
, which was in the alternative before the Democratic Party submitted the amendment to the standing committee on August 17th,
is much more understandable.
The bill should be changed more and more clearly in the process of revision and discussion, but perhaps because of the urgent push, the amendment to the Media Arbitration Act has gone the opposite way.
Selective swift action', the Democratic Party's attitude toward legislation
However, the Democratic Party, which is pushing the revision of the Media Arbitration Act as if it were a military operation, showed a passive attitude to legislation to the extent that it was seen as a waste of time on matters that really require urgent wages.
Loss compensation legislation is an example.
(Reference article: [Report file] Loss compensation law that is difficult to compensate for damage caused by COVID-19, and the state's responsibility) The Democratic Party also held a legislative hearing, which is unprecedented if it wants to hear the voices of the people directly.
At the legislative hearing, the voices of small business owners calling for the retroactive application of the loss compensation system continued, but the Democratic Party eventually passed the Loss Compensation Act without retroactive application.
Criticism was raised that it was an event to buy time because it only listened to the voices of the people and did not reflect it.
There was even criticism that "the Democratic Party became the Democratic Party again."
While the legislation was delayed, the damage to small business owners accumulated, and the amount of damage not covered by the loss compensation system without retroactive application increased.
Is it to reduce the damage to the general public, or is it to reduce the damage to the general public as the Democratic Party, which took a long time by including procedures that may be unnecessary for issues that actually need speed warfare, is engaging in speed warfare on issues that need to collect opinions? Is it a tactical move to show that you are doing something?
If I quote and report false information from a public official or public institution, is it subject to punitive damages?
Democratic lawmakers also mentioned the so-called 'Bus 240 incident' as a harmful effect of the media reports. However, there was a counter-argument that the starting point of the incident was not the media reports, but the one-person media or the community. Then, Democratic Party lawmaker
Jeon Jeon-gi explained,
"It is true that bus number 240 started as a one-man media, but it became a problem because it was expanded and reproduced as an article."
This remark of the former member of the House of Representatives needs to be taken seriously.
Let's say there are public figures, such as fake information and a politician who repeats lies. If that person appeared on a TV show and gave them a chance to tell false information, should the broadcaster be liable for punitive damages for the remarks delivered?
Should the media company that reported citing false claims of politicians and others be liable for punitive damages for the report?
According to the purpose of the former lawmaker's remarks, all should be subject to punitive damages.
At the time of the Fatherland Incident, a lot of misinformation ignited by the former Minister of Homeland, his family and people around him was reported in the media. The Blue House said that it was based on the explanatory material of the court, and publicly disclosed fabricated information that "the Ministry of Environment case is not a 'blacklist case', and this statement of position was reported in most media.
(Reference article: [Report file] The current Blue House spokesperson's definition of 'blacklist' and 'whitelist')
Some of the Democratic presidential nominees were reported to the media by repeating false information that "(all of them) were acquitted with regard to private equity funds" in relation to the second trial of Professor Jeong Kyung-shim, wife of former Justice Minister Cho Kuk.
Should these reports be subject to punitive damages?
It is not certain when looking only at the amendment to the Media Arbitration Act.
If the bill is actively interpreted, the broadcaster may be liable for punitive damages if the remarks of politicians, such as the president, were transmitted to the broadcast as they were, and the remarks were false information and caused irreparable damage to the victim. .
The Democrats have a leading role in providing media arbitration amendment to the SBS reporter for
"even wrote Take it to the reporter lied I wrote the reporter to know the intentions geonya know,"
said,
"just pass the argument just is punitive It is difficult to be the subject of compensation
.
”
However, this answer contradicts the position of the Democratic Party, which is pushing for the introduction of a punitive damages system, saying that you should not write an article based on only one side of the story.
This is the current status of the amendment to the Media Arbitration Act, which was introduced to prevent so-called dictation.
Is it possible to legislate to avoid the 'unconstitutional situation'?
In February and March of this year, the Constitutional Court ruled in relation to the provisions of the penalty for defamation,
"Unlike legislative cases where punitive damages are recognized, prevention or detrimental effects can be achieved through civil damages instead of punishment. However, it is difficult to secure preventive or detrimental effects such as punishment through our country's civil remedies alone
."
The decision of the Constitutional Court is that punitive damages serve as a punishment, but in Korea, there is no system for punitive damages for defamation, so the penalty clause is constitutional
.
If the amendment to the Media Arbitration Act has been passed and implemented at that time, and the punitive provisions such as defamation in fact are maintained at that time, unconstitutional situations such as 'double punishment' and 'violation of excessive prohibition' may occur.
Meanwhile, in March of this year, the Constitutional Court announced that
'a law regulating freedom of expression is constitutionally required to define the concept of regulated expression in detail and clearly'
. '
The regulation of freedom of expression by an ambiguous norm causes a contraction effect on the expression protected by the constitution, thereby enabling the expression of various opinions, opinions, and ideas, so that such expressions undergo mutual verification. For the
reason
that it causes the original function of freedom to be lost'
. However, the current amendment to the Media Arbitration Act contains a lot of vague expressions such as 'retaliation', 'repetition', and 'manipulation'.
If the current bill is passed by the National Assembly, an unconstitutional situation could arise. The reason why academia, civil society, and the media are demanding deliberation is to prevent the occurrence of such unconstitutional situations and to enact a proper bill for the protection of citizens. However, given the Democratic Party's legislative discussion process, it seems unlikely that these concerns and concerns will be reflected.