[Editorial] When Terminology Causes Constitutional Controversy

Recently some of the country's conservative media submitted a constitutional petition asking that the "Press Mediation Law" be found unconstitutional. Meanwhile, over the weekend the Seoul Central District Court has asked the Constitutional Court to determine the constitutionality of sections of that law. In our view the problem basically originates not with the law as a whole, but from the fact that the term "jeongjeong bodo" ("correction"), a term that comes from civil proceedings regarding defamation of character, was transplanted direction into this separate legislation.

What the Seoul court is taking issue with is the section where it says the condition for a correction is that one be issued "when a report is not truthful, so as to make it consistent with the truth." These media are claiming that Article 14 Section 2 and Article 31, which say that a media company "does not have to have deliberately or mistakenly issued an inaccurate report in order for someone to demand a correction," have the potential to infringe on press freedom. By appearances, that looks like it contradicts the grounds for a correction stated in Article 746 of Civil Law, which covers defamation of character. According to Article 746, a person cannot demand a correction if there is not proven intention, negligence, or illegality.

The experts say, however, that "correction" as defined in Civil Law and the Press Mediation Law are entirely different. As evidence, they quote Article 26 of the press law, which specifically states that it does not influence the exercise of rights under Article 746 of Civil Law. They say that under the Press Mediation Law, "correction" is just a more comprehensive concept for "rebuttal." In other words, it is not that media would be made to admit their mistakes. Instead, "corrections" should be seen as conveying opposing views that include corrections. Laws in France and Germany, where the right of rebuttal originated, assume the same view.

There is of course academic objection to this as well. But given the goal of the Press Mediation Law in offering swift measures for those who are wronged by press reports, "corrections" should be seen as a form of rebuttal. That being the case, the legal controversy should be put to rest by resolving the controversy over the terminology.

The Hankyoreh, 24January 2006.

[Translations by Seoul Selection]