|
"It's the government that should be watched by the media, so is it possible to get it all backwards and demand that the media report its secret information to the government? Conventional logic or legal understanding can't explain it, and it's unfair treatment compared to normal corporations. Nor is it good for a relationship between the media and government." (Choi Seung-no, researcher at the Center for Free Enterprise)
Article 15 of the Uri Party's proposed revision of the periodicals law (i.e., the new Newspaper Bill) enumerates, "Owners of periodical businesses who run daily or weekly newspapers must report their newspaper business details from the previous fiscal year to the Minister of Culture within five months after the company's settling day of that particular year."
Lawyers, journalism scholars and economists point out that the article is an unparalleled violation of press freedom. The details selected by the article are total circulation, fixed-price sales, print circulation, subscription fees, advertising fees, financial statements in accordance with standard accounting formula set by presidential order, business reports and audit statements, and other details decided by presidential order. The article calls for stock and capital details to be reported to the minister in charge of the Ministry of Culture. It also calls for those details to be published by the Ministry of Culture.
Sejong University journalism professor Nam Shi-uk said, "These are industrial secrets and management know-how that corporations cannot release, and to tell only newspaper company owners to report those details to the government for publication is to coerce the media." Nam said, "Despite the fact that this management information appears also in the tax material submitted by each media company to the tax office, to make newspaper companies report separately to the Ministry of Culture and punish those that don't has prepared a path for the intervention of government authority." In particular, Nam expressed concern that the section of the report article calling for details determined by a presidential order could serve as a basis for the government to learn all newspaper company data when it wants.
People point out that it's a bad law without parallel abroad. Catholic University law professor Park Seon-yeong said, "The government could demand management data from a government newspaper or public broadcaster, but it would be hard to find parallels anywhere in the world for a law that places that duty on private newspapers." Park said, "If the bill were passed, it could be ill-used to suppress the media. The government could interfere in internal management, even if indirectly, and violate the principle of private, autonomous control of businesses."
Because of this, experts say there is much ground to call the bill unconstitutional. One lawyers who used to be a presiding judge said, "It's a violation of business rights, and it violates the constitutional principle banning excessive restrictions. As the freedom of the press is an important basic constitutional right, one has to stop at that limit, and to place on media companies more excessive duties than on other companies is unbalanced." Seoul National University Graduate School of Public Administration professor Hong Jun-hyeoung said, "As the article violates the principles of business freedom and proportionality, there is controversy over whether it is unconstitutional."
Hongik University law professor Bang Seok-ho, speaking about the article's violation of managerial rights and the freedom of private enterprise, said, "Whether or not to submit newspaper management data is the publisher's freedom, and to order companies to reveal their internal secrets and business secrets publicly is a violation of constitutionally guaranteed management rights, and also a violation of the freedom of private enterprise."
In February, 2002, 27 ruling and opposition lawmakers submitted a periodical law reform bill that contained an article calling for newspapers to report their management data, yet it was not legislated due to public opposition. During the Fifth Republic of former President Chun Doo-hwan, the basic media law included a provision calling for publishers and broadcast station heads to publicly declare the assets of their media companies and submit the information to the Minister of Culture, but in the new periodicals law written after the democratic uprising of June 10, 1987, the article was deleted.
(Jin Sung-ho, shjin@chosun.com )
|
