• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.21
• /
• pp.147-175
• /
• 2003

This study is primarily concerned with the criteria for choosing a legitimate state plaintiff in cases involving a states request to media for a right of reply. Interpretation of the right of reply itself is different from country to country because of different constitutional views and systems in each state. Unlike the United States, the constitution of the Republic of Korea does not expressly prohibit the making of laws adversely affecting freedom of the press. Accordingly, in Korea freedom of the press may be restricted through legislation within certain limits and the right of reply is not incompatible with the spirit of the constitution. An analysis of relevant law makes it clear that the particular agency aggrieved should initiate the suit rather than the Justice Minister. The idea that the Justice Minister should assume the role of plaintiff in all state cases seems to stem from flawed interpretations of provisions in the Law Governing Registration of Periodicals and the Law Governing Litigation Involving the State. Even though each state agency has the right of reply, it should be cautioned not to abuse it as the states frequent involvement in litigation may bring on unnecessary misunderstanding and have a chilling effect on the media. The right of reply does not always imply that a certain media report in question is wrong and the media should be sanctioned for it. The right of reply is basically intended to help the general public make an informed judgment on issues presented in the media and insure fairness and balance.