and I’m guessing he’d take issue with somebody publishing on the Web illegally obtained conversations of progressive figures, but this should disturb you (HT to keyinjpop):
A South Korean politician who sought to expose corruption within Samsung’s ranks has lost his seat in parliament. The Supreme Court upheld that by publishing transcripts of wiretapped conversations online, Roh Hoe-chan broke communications laws; the conviction means he cannot remain a lawmaker, and he has received a suspended prison sentence. In explaining its decision, the court said “Unlike distributing press releases to journalists, uploading messages on the Internet allows an easy access to anybody at any time.” It added that the media publishes select information “with responsibility” rather than providing the public with “unfiltered access” to what it knows.
The Hankyoreh, needless to say, leaped to Roh’s defense:
It goes against any sense of the law or justice to punish Roh – as well as the journalists who disclosed the information – while ignoring the Samsung employees and prosecutors implicated in the bribery. Two sides came together to produce this comical verdict: biased prosecutors who claimed that the evidence was tainted by the illegal means by which it was obtained, and a court that insisted on only the narrowest interpretation of the law. It is distressing to see the court’s third division going ahead with the ruling despite a request by 159 lawmakers from all party affiliations asking it to postpone the decision.
Hey, I agree, but still, I do wonder whether the Hani would be calling for punishments of progressive types based on evidence obtained through illegal wiretaps.



{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
“It added that the media publishes select information ‘with responsibility’” — Thanks for the chuckle, Robert.
Yeah, there’s that aspect, too.
And the selection–filtering–is done with the chaebol advertisers looking over the media outlets’ shoulders. With that reality, posting online sounds like the more responsible thing to do.
So Korean courts protect arson at the Yasukuni Shrine as political speech (http://www.rjkoehler.com/2013/01/04/this-wont-help-korea-japan-relations):
…but do not protect political speech as speech.
Of course, I am arguing by analogy, so I wonder what could be the difference. I wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder…..
Does Korea have single party consent when in comes to recording a conversation? Or must all parties give their consent to record a conversation? Anyone hear of this as an issue in Korea?
Thanks for the hat tip. Pretty sad how a government can do this without opposition or remorse.
“Hey, I agree, but still, I do wonder whether the Hani would be calling for punishments of progressive types based on evidence obtained through illegal wiretaps.”
I think this tangentially supports the point I made a week or so ago concerning the NIS agent investigation and liberals. I had argued: liberals, if given the opportunity, would have spied on conservative politicians to affect the outcome of the election.
It is sad SK politics and journalism are in corruption. I could find solace only in that SK is not very “innovative” on this matter:
Source: Dr. Declan Hayes, The Japanese Disease: Sex and Sleaze in Modern Japan
Yes, Q, everyday I count my blessings that I am not in North Korea, Somalia, or some other country that has has the problems on steroids that Korea has on steroids.
Why would you bother to be in NK, Somalia, or even in SK for the problem?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/12/hsbc-prosecution-fine-money-laundering
You must log in to post a comment.