반론권의 정치적 활용: 대통령과 언론중재위원회

The right to reply intrinsically creates a conflict between freedom of the press and freedom of speech of the individual who seeks to reply. The Supreme Court of the United States saw the problem was that any right to reply law requires the government to enforce that right. In Korea, the Press Arbitration Commission as a mechanism to enforce the right to reply was originally devised for the public, but has degenerated into a tool for public officials including presidents. In practice, the Press Arbitration Commission too often becomes the legally sanctioned method by which the powerful can wield threats against the press or chill the press. The President and the government and its officials' effective use of this arbitration commission runs against the goal and intention of the right to reply, which was to afford people an opportunity to get a prompt remedy for reputational injury by a press outlet. The purpose of this article is to argue that the right to reply, as the U.S. Supreme Court warned, can be politically converted from a remedy for the defamed public into a suppressive measure for the powerful public servants. For this purpose, the article explores how the right to reply in South Korea has been exploited by presidents, government officials, and government agencies.