 |
News Media and Defamation Law in South Korea: A Case of the 'Positivist, Instrumentalist Interaction'
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
21
39
Supreme Court, 97 Ta 34563, May 8, 1998 (citing Supreme Court, 95 Ta 36329, Oct. 11, 1996; Supreme Court, 97 Ta 24207,
Sept. 30, 1997).
40
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit defined the “neutral reportage” doctrine thus:
[S]uccinctly stated, when a responsible, prominent organization ... makes serious charges against a public figure, the First Amendment protects the accurate and disinterested reporting of those charges, regardless of the reporter’s private views regarding their validity.... What is newsworthy about such accusations is that they were made. We do not believe that the press may be required under the First Amendment to suppress newsworthy statements merely because it has serious doubts regarding their truth. Nor must the press take up cudgels against dubious charges in order to publish them without fear of liability for defamation.
Edwards v. National Audubon Society, 556 F.2d 113, 120 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1002 (1977) (citations omitted). For an update on the neutral reportage doctrine in U.S. law especially since 1988, see Joseph A. Russomanno & Kyu Ho Youm, "'Neutral Reportage' and Its Second Decade: A Marketplace Perspective," 3 Communication Law & Policy 439 (1998).
41
Pak Yong-sang, The Press and Individual Interests (Korean) 152 (1997).
42
Seoul High Court, 97 Na 23466, Jan. 21, 1998.
43
Seoul District Court, 95 Kahap 94047, May 2, 1997.
44
Id.
45
Seoul High Court, 97 Na 23466, Jan. 21, 1998.
46
Edwards, 556 F.2d at 120 (emphasis added).
47
Seoul High Court, 95 Na 24946, Feb. 27, 1996.
48
The ad-hoc balancing approach is defined thus: "In any conflict between free speech and other social values, the weight of the
speech interest is balanced against the weight of the competing interest, on a case-by-case basis, and the conflict is resolved under a straightforward cost-benefit analysis." Rodney A. Smolla, Smolla and Nimmer on Freedom of Speech, § 2:55, at 2-56 (2001).
49
Supreme Court, 96 Ta 17257, July 4, 1998 (citing Supreme Court, 85 Taka 29, Oct. 11, 1988) (emphasis added).
50
Id. (citing Supreme Court, 85 Taka 29, Oct. 11, 1988; Supreme Court, 94 Ta 33828, May 28, 1996; Supreme Court, 95 Ta
36329, Oct. 11, 1996).
51
As a counterpoint to "ad-hoc" balancing, the "definitional balancing" test provides more uniformity and predictability into the
balancing process: "[C]ourts define the outer limit of free speech before the balancing test is applied in individual cases. Thus, definitional balancing reduces the vagueness of ad hoc balancing by providing defined standards that can be applied in similar cases." Kent R. Middleton et al., The Law of Public Communication 40 (2002 ed. 2002).
52
Supreme Court, 96 Ta 17257, July 4, 1998 (citing Supreme Court, 94 To 1942, Nov. 10, 1995; Supreme Court, 94 To 3309,
April 12, 1996; Supreme Court, 95 Ta 36329, Oct. 11, 1996; Supreme Court, 95 To 1473, Oct. 25, 1996).
53
Id.
54
Id.
55
Id. (emphasis added).
|
| |
| |
|
|
21
39
Supreme Court, 97 Ta 34563, May 8, 1998 (citing Supreme Court, 95 Ta 36329, Oct. 11, 1996; Supreme Court, 97 Ta 24207,
Sept. 30, 1997).
40
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit defined the “neutral reportage” doctrine thus:
[S]uccinctly stated, when a responsible, prominent organization ... makes serious charges against a public
figure, the First Amendment protects the accurate and disinterested reporting of those charges, regardless of
the reporter’s private views regarding their validity.... What is newsworthy about such accusations is that
they were made. We do not believe that the press may be required under the First Amendment to suppress
newsworthy statements merely because it has serious doubts regarding their truth. Nor must the press take up
cudgels against dubious charges in order to publish them without fear of liability for defamation.
Edwards v. National Audubon Society, 556 F.2d 113, 120 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1002 (1977) (citations omitted). For
an update on the neutral reportage doctrine in U.S. law especially since 1988, see Joseph A. Russomanno & Kyu Ho Youm,
"'Neutral Reportage' and Its Second Decade: A Marketplace Perspective," 3 Communication Law & Policy 439 (1998).
41
Pak Yong-sang, The Press and Individual Interests (Korean) 152 (1997).
42
Seoul High Court, 97 Na 23466, Jan. 21, 1998.
43
Seoul District Court, 95 Kahap 94047, May 2, 1997.
44
Id.
45
Seoul High Court, 97 Na 23466, Jan. 21, 1998.
46
Edwards, 556 F.2d at 120 (emphasis added).
47
Seoul High Court, 95 Na 24946, Feb. 27, 1996.
48
The ad-hoc balancing approach is defined thus: "In any conflict between free speech and other social values, the weight of the
speech interest is balanced against the weight of the competing interest, on a case-by-case basis, and the conflict is resolved under
a straightforward cost-benefit analysis." Rodney A. Smolla, Smolla and Nimmer on Freedom of Speech, § 2:55, at 2-56 (2001).
49
Supreme Court, 96 Ta 17257, July 4, 1998 (citing Supreme Court, 85 Taka 29, Oct. 11, 1988) (emphasis added).
50
Id. (citing Supreme Court, 85 Taka 29, Oct. 11, 1988; Supreme Court, 94 Ta 33828, May 28, 1996; Supreme Court, 95 Ta
36329, Oct. 11, 1996).
51
As a counterpoint to "ad-hoc" balancing, the "definitional balancing" test provides more uniformity and predictability into the
balancing process: "[C]ourts define the outer limit of free speech before the balancing test is applied in individual cases. Thus,
definitional balancing reduces the vagueness of ad hoc balancing by providing defined standards that can be applied in similar
cases." Kent R. Middleton et al., The Law of Public Communication 40 (2002 ed. 2002).
52
Supreme Court, 96 Ta 17257, July 4, 1998 (citing Supreme Court, 94 To 1942, Nov. 10, 1995; Supreme Court, 94 To 3309,
April 12, 1996; Supreme Court, 95 Ta 36329, Oct. 11, 1996; Supreme Court, 95 To 1473, Oct. 25, 1996).
53
Id.
54
Id.
55
Id. (emphasis added).
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
