[Editorial] The Newspaper Law is a Guarantee for "Active Freedom of Speech"

　

The final decision of the Constitutional Court (CC) regarding the legality of the Newspaper Law and Media Arbitration Law draws near. It is reported that the CC will soon release its final decision regarding the constitutional appeal presented by two conservative newspaper companies. The law, which has become the subject of controversy, was enacted last January by the National Legislature after a campaign of several years carried out by civil groups. Two newspaper companies presented an appeal in March and June of last year, thus prolonging the debate another year.

The core controversy regarding the Newspaper Law lies in provisions on the management of newspaper companies, which are more strict than those pertaining to other private enterprises. For the Media Arbitration Law, the subject of debate is as to whether the provisions regarding advice and requests for the rectification and corrections of broadcast contents restrict the activities of media organizations. In regards to the justifiability of the particulars of the regulations, there has been sufficient discussion by media scholars and related groups and thus there is no need for further reiteration.

Within this debate, the truly important thing is the spirit of the law. Until now the discussion has focused on private industries, but as newspaper companies are also in a way public organs, there must also be a debate as to whether their autonomy may be partially restricted for the sake of social responsibility, or rather whether the freedom of private media companies is the top priority. The social responsibility of the media and the individual freedom of media companies thus appear to be in a state of conflict.

However, the true nature of the debate follows from a difference over a difference in concepts of freedom. There are both passive and active forms of freedom. If passive freedom is the right not to have something forced upon oneself, active freedom is the right to bring something to fruition. Civil groups backing the media laws and reform-minded media organizations have asserted that an active legal provision is necessary for freedom of the press, and despite the deficiencies of the Newspaper Law, it guarantees this to some extent.

In the social sphere, passive freedom cannot be absolutely guaranteed. If everyone asserts their own individual freedom, then collisions cannot be avoided. There is nothing that needs to be said to those media organizations that undertake the shaping of public opinion alongside the restraining and critiquing of authority as their raison d'etre. It can be said that the media's freedom to faithfully carry out its duty is a freedom that bolsters democracy. The Newspaper Law is a very basic means of protecting against the corrupting active freedoms of cliques and Chaebol (conglomerates). If even this basic law is taken away, it is hard to expect a balanced media that can rationally shape public opinion through the consideration of a diverse set of opinions.