In this blog post, we will examine how the right of reply strikes a balance between freedom of the press and the protection of an individual’s reputation.
When your reputation is damaged by media coverage, there are several legal procedures you can follow to seek redress. Our civil law stipulates that monetary compensation and non-monetary compensation can be claimed to remedy damage caused by defamation. One form of non-monetary compensation is the “right of reply.”
The right of reply is the right of a party who claims to have been damaged by media coverage to refute, in print or on air, factual claims (reporting of facts) that are not purely opinions in the media coverage in question. The right of reply is generally exercised through a counter-report, which is different from a correction or follow-up report. Corrective reporting is used to correct false information in a report, while follow-up reporting is used to report on the acquittal or innocence of a party who has been reported to have been subject to criminal proceedings.
The right of reply system is implemented in about 30 countries around the world, and Korea’s right of reply system follows the German model, which grants the right of reply only to factual claims, rather than the French model, which applies the right of reply to opinions. A distinctive feature of the right of reply system in Korea is that the government introduced the right of reply and decided that it should be exercised through the Press Arbitration Commission. When the right of reply was introduced, the Korean government argued that exercising the right of reply through the Press Arbitration Commission would not burden the media with a loss of credibility and would provide individuals with an opportunity to quickly obtain relief for damages, thereby making it an effective system. In response, media companies and some scholars expressed concerns that allowing the right of reply to be exercised through the Press Arbitration Commission, a judicial body, could infringe on the editorial and programming rights of the media and ultimately undermine the essence of freedom of the press.
However, in ruling on the existence of the right of reply, the Constitutional Court found that the right of reply is not the right to correct false facts to reflect the truth, but rather the right of the injured party to publish their own claims regarding the article in question, and therefore considered it a constitutional remedy. In addition, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of reply system is in line with the principle of equality of arms. In other words, it is justified as a means of maintaining balance by allowing the general public to attack and defend themselves equally against the socially powerful media.
Claims for the right of rebuttal can be filed with the Press Arbitration Commission or the court, and claims can be filed with both institutions at the same time. In such cases, the right of rebuttal can be claimed regardless of whether the media outlet is at fault or whether the content of the article is true. Despite the critical views of some scholars, media experts recognize the importance of the right of reply system through the Press Arbitration Commission, as it is most desirable to resolve disputes related to the media outside of court. However, in order to improve its effectiveness, it will be necessary to increase the agreement rate and quality of arbitration so that all parties are satisfied.
The right of reply is an important means of quickly and efficiently resolving issues related to an individual’s reputation. In particular, considering the importance of time in defamation cases, a quick response through the right of reply plays a major role in preventing further damage. This goes beyond simply restoring an individual’s reputation and contributes to increasing the transparency and accuracy of information distribution throughout society.
The Press Arbitration Committee’s right of reply system plays an important role in balancing freedom of the press and the protection of personal reputation. Through this system, individuals who have been harmed can quickly express their position, and the press strives to provide more reliable information. Therefore, in order to operate the right of reply system more effectively, it is necessary to raise awareness of the system and continuously seek practical remedies. In addition, the neutrality and fairness of the Press Dispute Mediation Committee are essential for the effective operation of the right of reply system. This is an important factor in building trust between the media and individuals and increasing the efficiency of dispute resolution.
Furthermore, in order to revitalize the right of reply system, education and publicity are necessary so that citizens can fully understand and utilize their right of reply. This will help those who have been harmed by media reports to exercise their rights at the appropriate time and ultimately contribute to improving the media environment of society as a whole.
The right of reply is a balanced system that guarantees freedom of the press while protecting the reputation of individuals. This will minimize conflicts between the media and individuals and create a healthier media environment. The importance of the right of reply must continue to be emphasized in order to create a society where the media and individuals respect each other and distribute accurate information.
Finally, the role of institutions such as the Press Arbitration Commission goes beyond simple mediation to building social trust. To this end, various remedies, including the right of reply, must be operated fairly and made easily accessible to everyone. This will ultimately contribute to the creation of a society where freedom of the press and individual rights coexist in harmony.
