[Editorial] Discard the Newspaper Law

The Constitutional Court yesterday ruled as unconstitutional certain provisions in the Newspaper Law and the Press Arbitration Law, for which daily newspapers including Dong-A Ilbo and Chosun Ilbo made a petition over their violation of press freedom.

The main point at issue, “Regulations on dominant market share businesses,” was ruled as unconstitutional, and the provision that daily newspapers or news agencies cannot own more than 50 percent of shares in other newspapers or news agencies was ruled as incompatible with the Constitution. Although the Constitutional Court dismissed or ruled certain provisions as constitutional, we think the Newspaper Law should be discarded since the main provisions were ruled as unconstitutional.

The Newspaper Law was made by the government to “handle” major daily newspapers such as Dong-A Ilbo and Chosun Ilbo, which are critical of its policies. It was an oppressive act unprecedented even in the days of military regimes, and an undemocratic act that transgresses upon the people’s right to know through repressive measures.

President Roh had tried to break the “spirit of the press” by closing the press room in government and public offices, banning public servant contact with the press, and suing over critical news reports. He also had broadcasting in his hand using his power to appoint the president of the public broadcasting company and created governmental media such as “Government News Briefing” with the people’s taxes.

Civic organizations, which played the role of “Red Guards” in the government’s establishment of the bad law, some intellectuals who supported it with their timeserving studies, and the Grand National Party that helped the law pass in the Assembly should feel responsibility for the result.

The main unconstitutional provision concerns dominant market share businesses. When a daily newspaper’s market share is more than 30 percent, and less than three businesses own more than 60 percent shares, they will be named as market dominant businesses under the Fair Trade Act, and disadvantages will be given accordingly. The Fair Trade Act defines businesses as market dominant when a company owns more than 50 percent shares, and three companies own more than 75 percent. The fact that the standard was lowered for newspapers shows that the Newspaper Law was made to target the three leading newspapers, Dong-A Ilbo, Chosun Ilbo, and JoongAng Ilbo.

Those in support of the government presented an odd logic that a different standard needs to apply to newspapers since public good is involved. However, the court struck down the law as transgressing on the right of equality and press freedom by clearly stating that the market dominant position of a newspaper is not a result of unfair trade since it is made by readers’ individual and mental choices. In other words, a newspaper’s circulation is decided by readers’ choice. The court rejected the government’s deceptive logic to tie down particular newspapers.

We feel sorry about the court’s decision to dismiss a few provisions as not directly transgressing basic rights. The court states that considering the public interest of newspapers, transparency needs to be enhanced in reporting, verifying, and opening to the public business data. However, it is a clear violation of press freedom to demand that newspapers turn in more specific business data for verification to the government, the representative external force that can violate press freedom.

We also question the Court’s judgment that the Korea Newspaper Circulation Service does not transgress press freedom. As an institution at odds with the capitalist market system, it reminds us of the socialist state’s circulation network. The Newspaper Law is now like a house whose pillars were struck down. It is a natural result. The Law, which was made by the government to ignore the people’s right to know and to have the press in its hand, lost its validity. We are determined to fight against the regime’s attempt to transgress press freedom. We will do our best to maintain our role as a keeper of Constitutional values such as democracy and the market economy.