언소주 24인 부당판결에 대한 박경신 교수님글 (영문번역)

[리오]

아래 14406번 글에 링크되어 있었던 언소주 부당판결에 해한 박경신 교수님의 글을

영문번역 작업 해보았습니다.

http://blog.peoplepower21.org/PublicLaw/21279

교수님 허락없이 작성글을 다른사람이 다른곳에 인용하고, 써도 되는지는 잘 모르겠으나,

언소주 참고자료로 쓰였으면 좋겠습니다.

(번역과정에서는 필연 번역자의 주관이 들어가지기 때문에 완벽한 번역글은 없다고 생각합니다만,

최대한 원문을 살리려고 했으나, 혹시 본영문 번역의 오류발견이나 이견이 있으시면 부탁 드리겠습니다....)

When a judge declared 24 members of the boycott guilty, it was like a pronouncement of death for freedom of expression‎; the convicted members merely made telephone calls or encouraged others to do so through an Internet bulletin board, committing no violence, fallacy, defamation or insult.

It is shameful that the judiciary has neglected its duty as the last fortress for the protection of people’s

natural and legal rights.

The court has confirmed that “readers, as the consumers of mass media, can aim to change the policies of editors by organising a boycott against mass media” and “it is permitted to list advertisers on the Internet

or to suggest a boycott based on the list, as long as the advertisers are free to make informed decisions

about where to put their advertisements.”

 This result is positive from the point of view that it puts an end to any controversy about the legality of secondary boycotts. However, the actual significance of that result has been tarnished by a conviction

which states that appealing for a boycott through the Internet is outside the permissible scope of the law.

The court decided that to be found guilty of the crime of ‘interference of work’, the guilty party has to have exercised a type of power (whether corporeal or incorporeal), which is based on threats and the confusion of one’s free will.

The court based their decision entirely on the idea that the 24 members’ boycott action constitutes this type of power, and in reality, it is not necessary for a victim’s free will to be repressed by that power.

But it is inevitable that boycotts which are run by many voluntary customers will put both tangible and intangible pressure on target companies.

If the court punishes this pressure as an impermissible type of power, that means that in the future the only boycotts which will be permitted in Korea will be those tolerated by prosecution and court.

That is the same as saying that boycotts which have no power of this type due to a lack of volunteers will be allowed, and boycotts which are powerful because they are backed by many volunteers are criminal.

The court made a judgement of interference of work because of too many received telephone calls, but this issue might also arise when too many commercial orders are received by telephone.

Under any democratic country’s legal principles, it cannot be logically justified that the congestion of the ordering telephone calls is legal and the congestion of the protest calls should be illegal.

How did defendants of this case exercise power by suggesting a boycott to citizens?

How can the people who leave messages on an Internet bulletin board interrupt or overbear the free decisions of readers or advertisers?

The most serious error of the court in answering the above question is to say that the so-called

“Conspiracy Joint Principal Offense” theory applies to the Internet, but this inference is unreasonable in the context.

Despite the absence of a thorough investigation, the prosecution is putting the responsibility of unspecified actors’ unreasonable conduct (verbal abuse and threatening phone calls) on the defendants, who consistently advocated their polite boycott notice.

There is not proof at all that the real phone callers read the web pages which are run by the defendants.

In the future, if the prosecution’s reasoning is correct, does it mean that those people from legitimate social movements who make suggestions on the Internet have to take all responsibility for all possible illegal results as part of the “Conspiracy Joint Principal Offense”?

This conviction will be a warning message to the whole nation, even though the court has tried to appear merciful by giving mild penalties such as fines or suspended sentences.

There are many consumer agendas suggested by many people in cyberspace but they need a lot of agreement from others to become a consumer movement.

In that sense, the reason why so many people joined the boycott was not because of someone’s oppressive demands but the expression‎ of awareness as citizens in the here and now.

If you do not fit the movement, you can cease action or unsubscribe from the Internet group.

No one has been forced to boycott.  The final action is a matter of each consumer’s “free will” and “conscience”

The court’s conviction of guilt against the operators of the boycott group will result in the removal of breathing space for freedom of association and the death of freedom of expression‎, which are guaranteed by our constitution.

This ruling is just an expression‎ of bias and an anachronistic attack against the meaning of consumer sovereignty, freedom of conscience, and the Internet.

Now all we can do is wait and hope that the appeal court can play a crucial role.

[에이플러스]

고맙습니다. 이따 시간내서 찬찬히 살펴보겠습니다. 멋진 표현들이 눈에 띄는 군요. 껄껄.

[하늘우러러]

고맙습니다... 외신들이 많이 보도해주길 바랍니다...ㅎ

[대표 김성균]

고맙습니다.