This article explains how you can seek redress if you are defamed in the media, the role of the right of reply system, and how it balances freedom of speech with protection of personal reputation.
If you are defamed in the media, there are several legal processes you can follow to seek redress. Our civil law provides that non-monetary remedies, such as damages, can be claimed alongside monetary remedies to redress harm caused by defamation. One of these non-monetary remedies is the right of rebuttal.
The right of rebuttal is the right of a party who claims to have been harmed by media coverage to rebut in print or on the air any factual assertions (i.e., reports of facts as opposed to pure opinion) in the media coverage at issue. The right to rebuttal is typically realized through a rebuttal report, which is different from a correction or follow-up report. Corrective reporting is the correction of a factual inaccuracy in a story, while follow-up reporting is the reporting of the acquittal or dismissal of a person reported to have faced criminal action.
The right of reply system is practiced 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 as well. When Korea introduced the right of reply, the government argued that exercising the right of reply through the Press Arbitration Committee is efficient because it does not burden the media with loss of credibility and gives individuals the opportunity to quickly seek redress for damages. In response, journalists and some scholars expressed concern that requiring the right of reply to be exercised through the Press Arbitration Committee, a statutory body, could infringe on the editorial and organizational rights of the media and ultimately undermine the essence of press freedom.
However, the Constitutional Court ruled that the right of reply is a constitutional remedy, as it is not a right to correct erroneous facts to conform to the truth, but rather a right for the injured party to publish his or her side of the story in question. The Supreme Court also found the right of reply system to be in line with the so-called principle of counterbalance, which means that it is justified because it provides a means of counterbalancing the media, a social powerhouse, so that the public can mount an equal offense and defense.
A right of reply claim can be filed with the Press Arbitration Board or the court, or both at the same time. The right to rebuttal can be claimed regardless of the fault of the media organization or the truthfulness of the article. Despite the critical views of some scholars, media experts recognize the importance of the right of reply system through the Press Arbitration Council in that disputes involving the media are best resolved out of court. However, in order to improve its effectiveness, the settlement rate and quality of arbitration will need to be increased to the satisfaction of all parties.
The right of reply is an important means of quickly and efficiently resolving issues related to an individual’s reputation. Given the importance of time, especially in defamation cases, a quick response through the right of reply can play a significant role in preventing the damage from deepening. This goes beyond simply restoring an individual’s reputation, but also contributes to increasing the transparency and accuracy of information circulation in society as a whole.
The right of reply system plays an important role in balancing freedom of speech with the protection of individuals’ reputations: it enables victims to speak out quickly and encourages the media to strive to provide more credible information. In order for the right of reply system to operate effectively, it is essential to raise awareness of the system and to continue to explore practical remedies. The neutrality and impartiality of the right of reply system is also essential to its effective operation, as it helps to build trust between the media and individuals and increases the effectiveness of dispute resolution.
Furthermore, education and outreach are necessary to ensure that citizens fully understand and utilize the right of reply. This will help those harmed by media coverage to exercise their rights in a timely manner, and ultimately contribute to improving the media environment in society as a whole.
The right of reply is a balanced system that guarantees freedom of speech while protecting the honor of individuals. This will minimize conflicts between the media and individuals and foster a healthier media environment. The importance of the right of reply must continue to be emphasized to create a society where the media and individuals respect each other and disseminate accurate information.
Finally, the role of organizations like the Press Arbitration Council goes beyond mere arbitration to building social trust. This will require an environment where various remedies, including the right of reply system, operate fairly and are easily accessible to all, which will ultimately contribute to a society where freedom of speech and individual rights coexist harmoniously.
