Sometimes it pays to be blissfuly unaware of Korean entertainment. Who knew a man using the name “Twist Kim” had nothing to do with the porn industry.
-
English Books on Korea... and More!
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
Sometimes it pays to be blissfuly unaware of Korean entertainment. Who knew a man using the name “Twist Kim” had nothing to do with the porn industry.
Bad Behavior has blocked 18804 access attempts in the last 7 days.
17 Comments
An interesting perspective on Korean “law”:
The article unfortunately doesn’t really answer the question that it elicits - if there “was” no law supporting this sort of decision in the past, is there one now justifying the court’s finding? - but it seems safe to assume that the court is making it up out of whole cloth this time around too. That might seem unobjectionable in the case at hand because of the distastefulness of the perp’s business and the apparent injury to the victim. But in the absence of a principled basis for decision, the court’s action is no better than an emotionally driven whim.
Apparently that guy was not the only one to use his name–Kim said he found 27 sites using his name: http://english.donga.com/srv/s.....5061684788
Hey, it is a good porn name, isn’t it?
What kind of person chooses to call himself Twist anyway?
Certainly sounds more like a porn actor than an investment banker.
To Sperwer,
The reporter does not seem to have relavent knowledge on the
ruling. I know that the dismissals were done on the prosecutor’s stage, I hear; cases did not go to the courts. It may have been the matter of subsumption. That is, whether
the deed of the site runner constituted a crime. Facts may
have showed that the name Twist Kim on the site was being
used to designate the celebrity Twist Kim. Think of Vanna
White(of Wheel Of Fortune) vs. Samsung Electronics. It’s
acknowledged that the robot was made to be associated with
Vanna White.
The reporter does not seem to
have relavent knowledge on the
ruling.
I know that the dismissals were done on the
prosecutor’s stage, I hear; cases
did not go to the courts. It may
have been the matter of
subsumption. That is, whether
the deed of the site runner
constituted a crime. Facts may
have showed that the name
Twist Kim on the site was being
used to designate the celebrity
Twist Kim. Think of Vanna
White(of Wheel Of Fortune) vs.
Samsung Electronics. It’s
acknowledged that the robot
was made to be associated with
Vanna White.
The reporter does not seem to have relavent knowledge on the ruling.
I know that the dismissals were done on the prosecutor’s stage, I hear; cases did not go to the courts. It may have been the matter of subsumption. That is, whether the deed of the site runner constituted a crime. Facts may have showed that the name Twist Kim on the site was being used to designate the celebrity Twist Kim. Think of Vanna White(of Wheel Of Fortune) vs. Samsung Electronics. It’s acknowledged that the robot was made to be associated with Vanna White.
.~*
What is it you’re trying to say?
First you say that you “know” the “dismissals” were done by the prosecutors’ office without a court hearing. Then you indicate that you “heard” this is the case.
Which is it? You don’t seem to be any better informed of the facts than you the reporter that you take to task.
If the case was “dismissed”, as you say, are you claiming that no fines were imposed?
And what is this supposed to mean:
Are you trying to say that the case was in effect “pleaded out” by the defendant’s admission of the charges before trial? If so, do you know that?
It would seem that the issue in this matter indeed is whether or not what the site operator did was a crime - in other words is it in fact proscribed by a Korean statute and/or an authoritative interpretation of a Korean statute established by judicial precedent? If not, and if as you seem to say, this is yet another instance of the Korean prosecutors railroading through their own view of how things ought to be, without benefit of judicial oversight, then it’s even worse than I first surmised about a court making an unprincipled decision.
Sperwer,
?????????
It’s my turn to say “What is it you’re trying to say?
“.
Of course, Twist Kim’s case crossed the threshold of the court and the court ruled. OK?
And the punishment is fine of 10mil won.
You wondered the last sentence of the reporter, didn’t it?
And I wrote the reporter was not correct.
Don’t you know hearsay knowledge? Gosh!
I know it by bla bla. OK?
Which case are you pointing out? ?????
You know that I was not writing about Twist Kim’s case.
If you say about the “dismissal” form , no fine was imposed, for no indictment was done. 기소독점권을 가진 검찰 측에서 기소를 하지 않은 거에요. 그러니까, 명예훼손죄의 구성요건에 ‘포섭되는’ 행위라고 생각하지 않은 거죠. 그리고 그러한 행위를 처벌할 법이 없다고 판단한 거구요. 해당법규 찾아서 법을 screening하잖아요. 아휴, 설명 어려워. 그러니까 법원 가기 전에 기소여부에서, 검찰에서 불기소처분 때려서 끝났다구요. OK?
Dogbertt, I need your translation if Sperwer caanot read Korean.
I think the problem is we can’t understand your english!!
I think the problem is we need a trnalsation of your english!!
I’ll correct the last Englsh sentence to this:
If you say about the word “dismissal” in the reoporter’s sentence , no fine was imposed, for no indictment was done.
Ms. or Mr. Arghaeri,
I don’t think the misleading is caused by my English but the lack of your knowledge.
If you lack in BASIC knowledge, you’ll not understand what is said even if it is written in easy & clear way.
Let’s test you.
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/1.3/configuring.html
This document is written in too easy English. Of course, for me, it’s easy to figure out. How about you? Easy? If so, I’ll give you a test.
Again to Arghaeri,
don’t refer to “we”. It seems to be YOUR problem on the ground of the mentioned reason above.
I see another one of those meteoric “rise and ban” stories coming on. Just like ZiggyStardust69.
.~*:
Don’t call us; we’ll call you.
Well there we have it, the answer to communications problems everywhere, learn Apache Configuration Files and you too can fully understand crap English, and of course if you don’t learn Apache then its entirely your fault that the person you’re trying to understand can’t write in English.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office, which has the sole power of indictment, did not indict. Therefore, they did not think that (the accused’s) action constituted “connotation”, an essential element of the crime of defamation. Also, they judged that there is no law under which this action can be punished. After all, they look at the relevant statutes, “screening” the laws. Oh, this is difficult to explain. Anyway, before going to court, there has to be a decision whether or not to indict. Because the Public Prosecutor’s Office disposed of this matter by not issuing an indictment, that was the end of it.