인터넷에서의 표현의 자유와 그 한계 -인터넷포털에서 발생하는 불법행위를 중심으로-
Online Activism to Call Advertisers to Pull Ads from Adversary Media
0
조회
0
다운로드
13
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
On June, 2008, some Korean online activists, mostly liberals, drove a campaign to call advertisers to pull ads from print media which stand on the opposite side of them in ideological spectrum. Activists were gathering at a web cafe, named "stop Cho Joong Dong," the last three words of which are the initials of top three newspapers in Korea. Everyday for more than two months, a list of advertisers who put ads in those newspapers, urging messages to call advertisers, and bragging notes of what they did to the advertisers are stuck on the web cafe board. Some activists even called to reserve seats, and suddenly cancelled the reservation to penalize the advertisers privately. This new campaign causes a brawl. The Korean Bar Association issued an announcement to stop the campaign as it is against the penal code, which prohibits interference of doing business. However, another lawyers association, almost all members of which are liberals, announced that this campaign is just a form of expression, therefore it is fully protected. In this article, I have analyzed the campaign in terms of freedom of expression, and reached a conclusion that it cannot be protected under anyrationale to support the freedom of expression, for ultimate goal of the campaign is to close the newspapers they do not like. It is totally different from the campaign led by 'FoxAttacks' or 'Media Matters for America'in the United States. American online activists are focused on monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Calling advertisers to pull ads is just a way of expressing their ideas. However, in Korea, calling advertisers is a step to make the newspapers stop printing.
Abstract
On June, 2008, some Korean online activists, mostly liberals, drove a campaign to call advertisers to pull ads from print media which stand on the opposite side of them in ideological spectrum. Activists were gathering at a web cafe, named "stop Cho Joong Dong," the last three words of which are the initials of top three newspapers in Korea. Everyday for more than two months, a list of advertisers who put ads in those newspapers, urging messages to call advertisers, and bragging notes of what they did to the advertisers are stuck on the web cafe board. Some activists even called to reserve seats, and suddenly cancelled the reservation to penalize the advertisers privately. This new campaign causes a brawl. The Korean Bar Association issued an announcement to stop the campaign as it is against the penal code, which prohibits interference of doing business. However, another lawyers association, almost all members of which are liberals, announced that this campaign is just a form of expression, therefore it is fully protected. In this article, I have analyzed the campaign in terms of freedom of expression, and reached a conclusion that it cannot be protected under anyrationale to support the freedom of expression, for ultimate goal of the campaign is to close the newspapers they do not like. It is totally different from the campaign led by 'FoxAttacks' or 'Media Matters for America'in the United States. American online activists are focused on monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Calling advertisers to pull ads is just a way of expressing their ideas. However, in Korea, calling advertisers is a step to make the newspapers stop printing.
참고문헌 (34)
- 金법무, "사이버모욕죄 신설 검토", 연합뉴스, 2008년 7월 22일, ~ (2008)
- "광고중단’ 전화받은 업체들, 검찰에 첫 고소" (2008)[URL]
- Thomas I. Emerson, "Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment", Yale. L.J, 72, pp.878~886 (1963)
- "헌재 1998. 4. 30. 선고, 95헌가 16 결정", ~ (1998)
- "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254", ~ (1964)
- "대법원 2002. 1. 22, 선고, 2000다37524, 37531 판결", ~ (2002)
- "공인에 대한 명예훼손", 법조, (551) (2002)
- "국가보안법 제7조 제5항", ~
- "대법원 2002. 1. 22. 선고, 2000다37524 판결", ~ (2002)
- 김성돈, "형법각론", pp.208~ (2008), SKKUP
- "대법원 2007. 6. 29. 선고, 2006도3839 판결", ~ (2007)
- "대법원 1995. 10. 12. 선고, 95도1589 판결", ~ (1995)
- "대법원 2005. 5. 27. 선고, 2004도8447 판결", ~ (2005)
- "민변 2008년 6월 21일 보도자료" (2008)[URL]
- "‘보수언론 광고 중단’ 네티즌 압박의 법률적 문제점에 대한 검토보고서" (2008)[URL]
- "미국선 ‘광고주 불매운동’ 인정 ... ‘불법논란’ 없어" (2008)[URL]
- "그린월드 감독 ‘광고불매운동에 수사기관 개입 없다’" (2007)[URL]
- "노무현 대통령은 2005년 11월 27일 <청와대 브리핑> 기고문", ~ (2005)
- "신문등의자유와기능보장에관한법률 제12조 제1항", ~
- "헌재 2006. 6. 29. 선고, 2005헌마165 등 결정", ~ (2006)
- "헌재 2003. 12. 18. 선고, 2002헌바49 결정", ~ (2003)
- "헌재 2006. 6. 29. 선고, 2005헌마165 등 결정", ~ (2006)
- "헌재 2003. 12. 18. 선고, 2002헌바49 결정", ~ (2003)
