On the afternoon of the 19th, when the interrogation date was held in the case of an injunction against airing and distribution ban filed by Kim Gun-hee, wife of Yun Seok-yeol, the presidential candidate for People’s Strength, Kim Kun-hee, lawyer Hong Jong-ki from Seocho-gu, Seoul, came out after questioning and entered. is revealing news
The YouTube channel ‘Open Empathy TV’ had a fierce legal battle over whether it should be banned from reporting the contents of the phone call of Kim Kun-hee, the spouse of Yoon Seok-yeol, the presidential candidate for the People’s Power.
On the 19th, the Civil Agreement Part 50 of the Seoul Central District Court (Director Kyung-geun Song) opened an interrogation on Kim’s application for an injunction against broadcasting and distribution against Open Gonggam TV.
Kim’s side insisted, “Disclosure of the recording is a political operation, not freedom of expression.” He also pointed out, “After approaching Mr. Kim and earning his favor, he is trying to record a private conversation and use it to defeat candidate Yoon Seok-yeol.” It was emphasized that it was an illegal act recorded by Mr. Lee, an official of Seoul Voice, secretly for political purposes. Kim’s representative added, “We are broadcasting to satisfy political manipulation and voyeurism.”
Open Sympathy TV said, “Kim Kun-hee is in a position to exercise considerable influence as the wife of a presidential candidate.” “Even if it is a simple private conversation, it is for the public interest to report on her spouse’s media outlets that can have a sensitive influence on the candidate. ” he countered. He continued, “Although it may cause controversy over violating the reporting ethics, the public interest infringed upon by blocking the reporting of very public matters is greater.”
Their workshop continued fiercely before and after the interrogation. Reporter Jin-goo Kang, who served as a reporter for Open Sympathy TV, said even before the interrogation began that day, “The application of an injunction by a candidate for public office not to report on the recording is an attempt to censor in advance, prohibited by the Constitution,” and “a serious challenge to the freedom of the press as a whole.” claimed that On the other hand, Kim’s deputy delegation met with reporters after the trial and said, “Recorded files created by such political manipulation are not within the scope of protection and have no value in the freedom of the press and the press.” It is not of interest,” he said.
The court was cautious. The court pointed out that Kim’s request for a ban on broadcasting should be specific, saying, “The prohibition of pre-reporting is in fact the nature of prior censorship or permission to report, so the requirements must be strict and clear even in the Supreme Court decision.”
This is the second court decision on whether to disclose the transcript of Kim’s call. Kim’s side applied for injunctive relief against MBC, Open Sympathy TV, and Seoul’s Voice, which had previously tried to report the transcript. On the 14th, the Seoul Western District Court allowed the disclosure of the contents of the injunction filed by Kim’s side against MBC except for investigations related to Kim, daily conversations unrelated to political views, and complaints about the media. The interrogation of the application for injunction against Seoul Voice will be held at the Seoul Southern District Court on the afternoon of the 20th.
Moon Jae-yeon reporter munjae@hankookilbo.com
Issues you may be interested in
.
