Human Rights Commission: "Temporary Measures in Media Arbitration Act Raise Concerns Over Freedom of the Press"

The National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) expressed concerns that the provisional measures in the Act on the Mediation and Relief of Damage in the Press (Press Mediation Act), currently under review in the National Assembly, could infringe on freedom of the press.

On the 2nd, the NHRCK announced that on the 30th of last month, it expressed its opinion to the Speaker of the National Assembly that the proposed amendments to the Press Mediation Act, currently being reviewed by the National Assembly’s Culture, Sports and Tourism Committee, excessively restrict freedom of the press and may infringe on the public’s right to know, thus requiring careful consideration.

The proposed amendments to the Press Mediation Act, submitted on June 29, stipulate that when the Press Arbitration Commission receives a mediation request related to a correction request or similar, it may impose provisional measures such as blocking access to the relevant press report for a period of up to 30 days and must immediately notify both the applicant and the information provider. Although cases of defamation and other damages caused by some internet media outlets publishing reports without accurate fact-checking have increased, there have been criticisms that the current mediation system under existing law makes it difficult to provide prompt and effective relief, leading to the proposal of these amendments.

However, the NHRCK pointed out that preemptively blocking access solely based on a mediation request infringes on freedom of the press. The NHRCK stated, "Provisional measures have effects similar to prior authorization and censorship, which are prohibited by the Constitution," and added, "They undermine the essential content of freedom of the press, where timeliness is crucial."

Furthermore, the NHRCK explained, "Even if only part of the content is problematic, the entire distribution of the press report is prohibited, which constitutes excessive restriction," and "Since no less invasive alternatives are considered besides provisional measures, this may violate the principle of minimal infringement, and there are no provisions for objection or appeal procedures against provisional measures, so media outlets are not guaranteed appropriate means of defense." It added, "Provisional measures block press reports on the internet for up to 30 days, restricting the public’s right to know and access to information on matters of public interest," and concluded, "Ultimately, this may hinder free criticism and public opinion formation, which are the essence of democracy."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.