Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Flash Ipanema]

Given all the crap going on around here lately this isn't looking like a bad idea about now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070628/tc_afp/skoreainternetjustice

[HighTreason]

Quite frankly, this sounds like a terrible idea to me. I don't know where Korea stands on Free Speech and all that, but I'm guessing they don't value it too much based on this. Sure, there are always going to be people who take advantage of free speech to say things that are untrue and/or hurtful, but that's the price one pays for freedom, and I don't think it's that steep. If people have to constantly worry about being sued or attacked for what they say, no one will ever say anything controversial. If no one says anything controversial, society will progress very very slowly if at all.

[Flash Ipanema]

Playing devil's advocate here:

America still has limitations on its free speech though. People can sue for libel or slander is someone else writes or says something untrue, and if someone makes a verbal or written threat they can be prosecuted. If someone on Dave's got really mad and threatened to kill me, I'd like to know that action could be taken to locate that person. Or, as was brought up in a livejournal fiasco a while back, if someone talks about wanting to molest a child, that person needs to get located by police so the appropriate action can be taken. The only reason Korea is doing this is obviously because online bullying and threats are getting really bad.

[Yu_Bum_suk]

I wonder if Professor Lemonade's still around. She'll be relieved to hear this.

[Damulgun]

Finally getting rid of the PC crap.

[Ilsanman]

It's a natural reaction. You have a problem, so you fix it. It's not fair or prudent to ban certain people from the internet (though it would be nice, if possible), so this is their solution.

[mack4289]

To curb cyber bullying? There's another way to look at this. I've posted about this before.

From May 14 Joong Ang Daily

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2875513

"A question on the �ask anything� section of the Web portal site Naver.com on April 24 drew thousands to their computers.

�Which conglomerate�s son are they talking about that got in a bar brawl with Bukchang-dong bar employees?�

The country�s radio, television stations and newspapers weren�t saying. Largely due to Korea�s strict media laws, the media�s stories that broke that day just described the case as a retaliation beating by an upset �chairman of a big conglomerate.�

The Internet, however, provided all the answers.

Early on, the details of the case could be found quickly. Hanwha Group Chairman Kim Seung-youn was the conglomerate chairman who allegedly tracked down and assaulted, using his fists and a steel pipe, the people who fought with his son, Dong-won, in a March 8 bar fight."

A victory for the rule of law, right? Yes, but a very temporary victory:

From the May 19th Joong Ang Daily:

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2875723

"Hosts of Internet blogs and interactive Web sites that allow malicious messages to be posted by anonymous users are now liable if personal reputations are harmed as a result of the comments, according to a Seoul Central District Court ruling yesterday that ordered major Korean portal sites to pay 16 million won ($17,000) in damages."

And now the ID law. I think South Korean media would have the story of the year in this country if they investigated the link between how the Hanhwa chairman was brought down and this rash of crackdowns on internet free speech.

[wylies99]

[mack4289]

I think to have a solid libel case in the US you have to be able to prove that the libelous statement was: false (if it's true or just an opinion, you have no case), harmful (getting small details wrong is not libel), believable (protection for satire), and that the source knew it to be untrue (so if you baited someone into publishing something false by giving them fradulent information, the publisher wouldn't be liable).

http://injury.findlaw.com/defamation-libel-slander/defamation-law-made-simple.html

"The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show there's been a statement that is all of the following:

published
false
injurious
unprivileged.
Let's look at each of these elements in detail.

1. First, the "statement" can be spoken, written, pictured, or even gestured. Because written statements last longer than spoken statements, most courts, juries, and insurance companies consider libel more harmful than slander.

2. "Published" means that a third party heard or saw the statement -- that is, someone other than the person who made the statement or the person the statement was about. "Published" doesn't necessarily mean that the statement was printed in a book -- it just needs to have been made public through television, radio, speeches, gossip, or even loud conversation. Of course, it could also have been written in magazines, books, newspapers, leaflets, or on picket signs.

3. A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false.

4. The statement must be "injurious." Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement -- for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won't collect much in a defamation suit.

5. Finally, to qualify as a defamatory statement, the offending statement must be "unprivileged." Under some circumstances, you cannot sue someone for defamation even if they make a statement that can be proved false. For example, witnesses who testify falsely in court or at a deposition can't be sued. (Although witnesses who testify to something they know is false could theoretically be prosecuted for perjury.) Lawmakers have decided that in these and other situations, which are considered "privileged," free speech is so important that the speakers should not be constrained by worries that they will be sued for defamation. Lawmakers themsleves also enjoy this privilege: They aren't liable for statements made in the legislative chamber or in official materials, even if they say or write things that would otherwise be defamatory.

The public has a right to criticize the people who govern them, so the least protection from defamation is given to public officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice." (For a definition of actual malice, see the "History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.")

People who aren't elected but who are still public figures because they are influential or famous -- like movie stars -- also have to prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice, in most cases."


And, just for a laugh:

Department of Libel: Drew Carey Killed a Guy and Paid to Cover It Up
www.theonion.com/content/node/30828

[Saxiif]

[horang]

This site should exercise the same system? Real name and real ID, and no such thing as user names.

[Saxiif]

[in_seoul_2003]

[horang]

[Young FRANKenstein]