This is a letter I sent to the JA Daily today. I've gotten published there a few times but I'd be surprised if this one gets in. I think it's worth a read, though.

Reading the JA Daily lately, I've noticed it takes an inconsistent stance on free speech. On the one hand, it takes a strong (and correct) stance against the government's effort to restrict media access but on the other hand, it doesn"t say a word in defense of free speech for internet users. Recently, I've seen articles in your paper that say the Seoul Central District Court will now hold websites liable for malicious (although not necessarily untrue) statements posted by users of those sites (May 19), that users will be liable for quoting a defamatory (although not necessarily untrue) news story (May 19), and that 4 to 5% of posts by internet users get deleted for having "irrelevant content with bad language" (although, again, not necessarily untrue) (May 19).

So why doesn't the JA Daily say a word in defense of the internet users? It can't be because the JA Daily doesn't understand the importance of user-created content. On April 30, the paper published an article that said that user-created content is going to become the dominant medium in the future. Could it be because the JA Daily doesn't want to see the competition strengthened?

If so, here's the flaw in that position. One of the biggest stories this year has been the arrest and indictment of Hanhwa Chairman Kim Seung. According to the May 14 edition of the JA Daily, the story never would've broken if not for the information that was provided on the internet, which the media wasn't allowed to provide. So your paper and the rest of the Korean media wouldn't have had one of the biggest stories of the year if not for the medium which your paper has yet to defend.

Still, incredibly, when those three stories about censoring the internet appeared on May 19, the only editorial regarding free speech on the internet in the JA Daily was one in favor of the Seoul Court's ruling, which never mentioned the possibility of suppressing free speech. Instead, it framed the issue as being all about the portal's responsibility for checking the accuracy of their news articles. Fair enough, but where was the defense of the user-created content that was so beneficial to this paper? I believe the JA Daily's readers, many of whom are likely generators of user-created content, deserve an explanation

Showing favoritism is nothing new in all societies. Look at the special treatment that celebrities get in America*. In America, celebrities often literally get away with murder, people like OJ Simpson and Micheal Jackson comes to mind. People of considerable powerful positions are often given favorable treatment. This is nothing new, however, I do agree Internet gives average citizen the strength to power they often lacked.

It's too bad that not everyone has access to this powerful medium. In America, 50% of the population still lacks access to the Internet. Modern world is creating a horrendous information divide between the have and the have not. Knowledge equals power, but not everyone can share it.

Important thing is to make Internet more accessible to the poor.



*Example of Lindsay Lohan's countless excuses and special treatment that reads like a rag sheet.

http://www.tmz.com/

We need a balance against the 2. Siding with just free spech with no limitations is not healthy nor is censorship.

My opinion is it should be a crime to publish:

troop movements
identities of undercover agents
malicious rumors that you know to be untrue

Everything else should be fair game. It's not perfect but it produces the greatest benefits with the fewest negative side effects.

As someone else said here need a balance. Free speech and content is disgusting. And happens a lot of times in countries like US, Canada, Australia, other Anglo-Saxon English speaking nations and they are indifferent about such things.

I admit I was shocked when I first came here in the US.

As an American and a big believer in free speech, I'm curious: what's shocking about free speech in America?

As I said, they are indifferent.

Indifferent to the excesses of free speech you mean? If so, yea I suppose that's true in America. There's no perfect way of regulating freedom of expression but I think the less regulation the better. Minimally regulated free speech, like I said before, produces the greatest side benefits with the least harmful side effects.

I agree with that. it's a slippery slope once the regulation begins....

Then it should be kept it in America only and who likes it stay there. Why btch in other countries, specially Korea?

Lee Moo-young, National News Director of the JA Daily, responds to my letter:

Dear Mike Mackenna



Thank you for your comments on JoongAng Daily articles.

I will review the issue carefully.

But you should first separate news articles from opinions.

When we report news on a certain issue,

the reporting itself does not necessary mean we support a certain stance on the issue.



Personally, I strongly uphold the freedom of speech.

But I also strongly oppose the abuse of speech freedom, such as libel and privacy violation.

I think we should balance between free speech and privacy protection,

though it is not always easy to say when for free speech and when free speech.

That's why I am working as a journalist to advocate the freedom of speech

while avoiding abuse of the freedom.



If you have better ideas and opinions to tackle the issue,

please, feel free to tell me.



Sincerely yours,

Lee Moo-young

National news director of the JoongAng Daily


My response to him:

First Mr. Lee let me say thank you for the excellent article today about Joe McPherson. If things work out for him, you and the JA Daily will deserve some of the credit.

I understand that the news articles the JA Daily publishes aren't necessarily reflective of its opinion. But I think an editorial in defense of freedom of speech on the net is in the best interests of the JA Daily and media outlets everywhere and I'm disappointed that I haven't seen one from this paper. The internet and its users are only going to become more influential. We should be all fighting to ensure they continue to have the freedom to expose people like Hanhwa Chairman Kim Seung.

At the same time, opening up free speech has some bad side effects. As someone who's been to America, you've probably seen some of these bad side effects personally. But I still think that liberating free speech is better than restricting it, in almost every case.

Free speech will become an especially important issue for Korea when its economy opens up more. That's going to attract investors (Korean and foreign) who are going to want reliable information and they will have read the coverage of Kim Seung and they will be asking themselves, "If this guy can take some goons with him to beat up some people in a bar and almost get away with it (he probably would've if not for the now hamstrung internet sites), what else can they get away with? What if the bottom falls out and I never see it coming because their media isn't allowed to report it?"

If I were going to defend free speech on the internet and elsewhere, I'd focus on the investment angle. As you probably know, when you start talking about "open society" and "the right to free expression", people's eyes glaze over. But when you start talking about their money, people pay attention. If you can make it clear that opening free speech can ultimately make people richer by attracting greater investment, then you will have strengthened the case for free speech a great deal. Thank you for your time and your thoughtful response.