|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:40 pm Post subject: internet free speech issues in Korea |
 |
|
Well, I can't say that I support THIS ruling...
| Quote: |
The Korea Communications Commission (KCC) ruled Tuesday that Internet users' online campaign organizing a boycott of companies running advertisements in conservative newspapers was illegal. It said the campaign could infringe upon the rights of the companies.
The ruling by the media policy-setting agency came after Internet users launched a campaign to boycott the Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo and Dong-a Ilbo ― three papers critical of candlelit protests against U.S. beef imports ― and called for companies to stop placing ads in them.
|
I don't see how you can make it illegal to call for a boycott of a company. What rights of the company are being violated here? The right to have people buy their products?
And this makes it all even more nonsensical...
| Quote: |
But the agency said consumers did have the right to boycott the three papers and post criticism of them on the Internet.
|
So newspapers can take their lumps for supporting this or that policy, but the companies that keep those newspapers afloat are to be exempt from boycott calls? Seems like a rather arbitrary line to be drawing here. If I don't like a company's policies, including their advertising policies, why shouldn't I be allowed to suggest that people who agree with me stop buying the company's products?
| Quote: |
The three newspapers and companies running ads in them claimed that some Internet users were causing massive problems with their businesses by making threatening phone calls and intentionally making and canceling reservations repeatedly.
|
If any of this crossed the line into criminal harassment, by all means, crack down on it. But holding the person who made the original comments responsible for the crimes of someone he's likely never even met is a bit heavy-handed to say the least.
I mean, hagwons get trashed by name all the time on Dave's. What's to stop some crooked hagwon owner from getting some flunky to place a few harassing calls to the front desk, and then turning around and demanding that Dave's be reprimanded for it? Okay, Dave's doesn't fall under Korean government jurisdiction, but you get the point I'm making.
| Quote: |
Internet users and some progressive civic groups argue that it is the consumers' right to boycott certain goods.
|
On this issue, if on no other, I have to side with the civic groups.
http://tinyurl.com/6n9uq4 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I talked to a lawyer about this the other day and it was explained to me in defamation terms.
The "boycott" is designed to hurt someones business. If they could prove that it was for the public good, they might have a case, but because their stated mission is to damage their business, it's illegal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That's interesting CC that you were able to get clarification on the subject from a lawyer. I suppose we would need to see what was actually said to understand what's going on. People put pressue on advertisers all the time in the US in terms of protesting. I've never heard of ruling like this, but then again free speech is quite different here in Korea then in the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see this in terms of the 'Dog Poop' girl. A fair amount of criticism is fair (hmmm) but using the internet to gang up on someone, flood their communication services and attempt to destroy them for political purposes (newspapers) is a new problem and will have to be worked out in the courts.
At this stage of the game, I'm siding with the newspapers. I'm inclined to say that protest against a company should be done by showing up with a picket sign and marching around in circles in the rain. The protester's right to free speech is protected. Mass e-mailing a legitimate company that is only 'guilty' of having another opinion on an issue should be regarded as a kind of illegal trespassing and forbidden.
Democracy is all good and well SOMETIMES, but it can also degenerate into a tyranny of the majority or a mob. I don't think that should be allowed and I do regard what the protesters are doing as mob action.
As I said at the beginning, this is a new issue created by new technology and the 'right' of it needs to be worked out by the courts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The "boycott" is designed to hurt someones business. If they could prove that it was for the public good, they might have a case, but because their stated mission is to damage their business, it's illegal. |
But isn't the newspaper boycott also designed to hurt people's businesses? And if the paper boycott is allowed because it's in the public good, I don't see how the advertiser boycott can be disallowed. Both campaigns have the exact same goal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
YataBoy wrote:
| Quote: |
A fair amount of criticism is fair (hmmm) but using the internet to gang up on someone, flood their communication services and attempt to destroy them for political purposes (newspapers) is a new problem and will have to be worked out in the courts.
|
Yes, but again, the KCC has ruled that it is okay to call for a boycott of the newspapers. Unless the invective against the advertisers was so much stronger than that directed against the newspapers, I think the distinction between the two targets is a pretty arbitrary one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
So newspapers can take their lumps for supporting this or that policy, but the companies that keep those newspapers afloat are to be exempt from boycott calls? Seems like a rather arbitrary line to be drawing here. If I don't like a company's policies, including their advertising policies, why shouldn't I be allowed to suggest that people who agree with me stop buying the company's products?
|
As the CEO of the ACME Widget Inc, I am proud of making and marketing the best widgets in Korea. I want to advertise in every media possible so that I can inform the public of the advantages of using my widgets. As a widget-making company, we have no official opinion about importing American beef because it is not related in any way to the manufacturing and selling of widgets. As individual citizens, the employees here at ACME Widget Inc. have opinions and are free to act on those opinions in their daily life, but as a company, why are we being forced to take a political position?
We are being told we cannot contact customers in conservative papers. In effect, we are being threatened with loss of business unless we take an official position on this unrelated matter. Furthermore, we are being 'forced' to only advertize in 'progressive' media, furthering their agenda. If we surrender to these demands, will we not also be encouraging conservative groups to threaten to boycott us for advertizing in the liberal media? Soon we may not be able to advertize anywhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
So newspapers can take their lumps for supporting this or that policy, but the companies that keep those newspapers afloat are to be exempt from boycott calls? Seems like a rather arbitrary line to be drawing here. If I don't like a company's policies, including their advertising policies, why shouldn't I be allowed to suggest that people who agree with me stop buying the company's products?
|
As the CEO of the ACME Widget Inc, I am proud of making and marketing the best widgets in Korea. I want to advertise in every media possible so that I can inform the public of the advantages of using my widgets. As a widget-making company, we have no official opinion about importing American beef because it is not related in any way to the manufacturing and selling of widgets. As individual citizens, the employees here at ACME Widget Inc. have opinions and are free to act on those opinions in their daily life, but as a company, why are we being forced to take a political position?
We are being told we cannot contact customers in conservative papers. In effect, we are being threatened with loss of business unless we take an official position on this unrelated matter. Furthermore, we are being 'forced' to only advertize in 'progressive' media, furthering their agenda. If we surrender to these demands, will we not also be encouraging conservative groups to threaten to boycott us for advertizing in the liberal media? Soon we may not be able to advertize anywhere. |
I agree that it might seem absurd and unfair to demand such a boycott, but that's still not the same thing as proving that it should be illegal to do so.
Acme Widgets makes a free decision to advertise in The Chosun Ilbo.
Joe Blow Korean Nationalist Blogger makes a free decision to criticize Acme's advertising policies, and tells his readers not to buy from Acme until they change their advertising policies.
Joe Blow's readers decide to take his advice and not buy from Acme.
I would think that all of this should be covered under any meaningful definition of free speech. And again, you might not agree that Joe Blow's reasoning is logical, but I don't think it's the job of government agencies to fine-tune the logic of anyone's argument, unless it involves maybe criminal incitement or the dissemination of false and defamatory information, which this case doesn't.
| Quote: |
I want to advertise in every media possible so that I can inform the public of the advantages of using my widgets. As a widget-making company, we have no official opinion about importing American beef because it is not related in any way to the manufacturing and selling of widgets. As individual citizens, the employees here at ACME Widget Inc. have opinions and are free to act on those opinions in their daily life, but as a company, why are we being forced to take a political position?
|
Okay. But suppose Acme Widgets decided to place ads in The American Nazi Party Times. Anti-Nazi activists demand a boycott of Acme's products until they start advertising there. Would you say that this is unfair, because after all, Acme Widgets is apolitical, and they're just trying to reach as many readers as possible?
| Quote: |
As individual citizens, the employees here at ACME Widget Inc. have opinions and are free to act on those opinions in their daily life, but as a company, why are we being forced to take a political position?
|
But couldn't you say the same thing about employees of the newspaper? The janitor at the paper's warehouse, for example, doesn't neccessarily endorse the paper's views, but he could possibly be hurt economically by a boycott. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
It would seem that calling for a boycott of advertisers is quite legal in the USA.
| Quote: |
Boycott Advertisers in the Washington Post
|
| Quote: |
LIST OF LOCAL ADVERTISERS IN THE WASHINGTON POST
Call, fax, and email to everyone on this list. AND THEN PASS THIS LIST ON
ANT Towing & American Auto Body Shop 6420 Chillum Pl. NW Washington, DC 20012 Tel: 202/882-4171 Fax: 202/829-6160
Arlington Motorcar Service 1712 Wilson Boulevard Rosslyn, VA 22209 Tel: 703/276-8022 Fax: 703/276-8033
etc etc |
And on the other end of the spectrum...
| Quote: |
Sign the Boycott Ford Pledge
Yes, I'm supporting the boycott of Ford Motor Company automobiles until Ford stops supporting homosexual groups which are pushing homosexual marriage. |
http://tinyurl.com/563389
http://www.boycottford.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I would think that all of this should be covered under any meaningful definition of free speech. |
This is why I said it will take the courts to sort out this new threat to civil liberties.
Call me foolish but I think the public in all its entities has a right to be protected from radical fear-mongers who prey on people. Ideally, that would be done in a free market of ideas, but when one side manipulates the system so only the lies get heard, you are playing into the hands of a tyranny.
You can only have a democratic country if the parties agree to accept the outcome of the elections. If the loser takes to the streets after every defeat and paralyzes the government, you have a serious problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Call me foolish but I think the public in all its entities has a right to be protected from radical fear-mongers who prey on people. |
I would agree. But then it seems to me that the problem is not calling for a boycott, but engaging in fear-mongering, another phrase for that being "the spreading of false information likely to cause panic".
And if that's the real problem, then the people calling for a boycott of the newspapers were also engaged in fear-mongering. However, the KCC said that those boycotts were okay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Call me foolish but I think the public in all its entities has a right to be protected from radical fear-mongers who prey on people. |
I would agree. But then it seems to me that the problem is not calling for a boycott, but engaging in fear-mongering, another phrase for that being "the spreading of false information likely to cause panic".
And if that's the real problem, then the people calling for a boycott of the newspapers were also engaged in fear-mongering. However, the KCC said that those boycotts were okay. |
Funny, because I think that's how I fel about the anti-beef protests exactly.
I personally believe that both boycotts would be classified as illegal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Logging on today at lunch I found this article that covers 2 of the 3 topics this thread is about (internet/free speech/Korea) so I linked it.
'Public' online spaces don't carry speech, rights NEW YORK - Rant all you want in a public park. A police officer generally won't eject you for your remarks alone, however unpopular or provocative.
Say it on the Internet, and you'll find that free speech and other constitutional rights are anything but guaranteed.
Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces online wipe out content that's controversial but otherwise legal. Service providers write their own rules for users worldwide and set foreign policy when they cooperate with regimes like China. They serve as prosecutor, judge and jury in handling disputes behind closed doors.
The governmental role that companies play online is taking on greater importance as their services � from online hangouts to virtual repositories of photos and video � become more central to public discourse around the world. It's a fallout of the Internet's market-driven growth, but possible remedies, including government regulation, can be worse than the symptoms.
The rest here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080706/ap_on_hi_te/tec_disappearing_freedoms |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Constitutionally protected free speech does not necessarily translate into freedom to target relationships among private businesses.
Although the specific elements required to prove a claim of tortious interference [with a business] vary from one jurisdiction to another, they typically include the following:
1. The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties.
2. Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
3. Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
4. Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
5. Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think there is something in the RICO statute that states when a boycott becomes extortion in the US.
Has to do with the intent.
The RICO statute has been used against, RTL gangs, Skinhead Neo Nazi, and others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
