April 19, 2024

South Korea Seeks Arrest of Podcaster Choo Chin-woo

Choo Chin-woo, a reporter with the leading newsweekly SisaIN, has been charged with violating the country’s election law. In their indictment, a copy of which was made available Sunday, the prosecutors said that through articles and a podcast a few weeks before the Dec. 19 presidential election, Mr. Choo “defamed” and “spread false information” about the president’s brother, Park Ji-man, with “an aim of blocking her election.”

Mr. Choo attained nationwide fame when he worked as a co-host of the podcast “Naneun Ggomsuda,” or “I Am a Petty-Minded Creep.” Started in 2011, the online talk show became one of the world’s most downloaded political podcasts from the Apple iTunes store and raised allegations of wrongdoing against some of the country’s religious, economic and political leaders.

The prosecutors’ attempt to arrest Mr. Choo follows earlier criminal indictments of television producers and Internet bloggers whose reports criticized the government on charges of spreading false information and defamation — a practice that international human rights groups have repeatedly denounced for creating a chilling effect among government critics.

“My crime was raising questions those in power don’t like,” Mr. Choo, 39, said in a recent interview. “They hate me like a cockroach and want to squash me.”

Filing a criminal indictment against people accused of spreading false rumors about public figures and then trying to incarcerate them during a long-term pretrial arrest is well beyond what would be accepted in other countries, said Park Kyung-sin, a professor of law at Korea University in Seoul.

“It’s very unusual and against the international human rights standards,” he said.

A Seoul court is scheduled to decide Tuesday whether to allow the prosecutors to arrest Mr. Choo.

In his articles and podcast, the journalist revisited a little-known 2011 case in which Park Yong-chol, a son of a cousin of Ms. Park, was found brutally murdered in a mountain park in Seoul. The man’s cousin was also found dead, hanged from a tree. The police concluded that the first victim had been killed by the second, who then hanged himself.

In his reports, Mr. Choo cited a legal dispute between the president’s brother, Park Ji-man, and his brother-in-law, who accused him of plotting to kill him by hiring Park Yong-chol as a hit man. (The brother-in-law, the husband of the president’s estranged younger sister, lost the case and served time in prison for slandering the president’s brother.)

Mr. Choo’s articles raised questions about the police investigation and cited the suspicion raised by the brother-in-law and his lawyer that the murder of Park Yong-chol might have had to do with a plot to block him from testifying on their behalf in their legal battle against Park Ji-man. They also raised the possibility that the man who police said hanged himself might have been murdered as well.

The president’s brother sued Mr. Choo on charges of spreading false rumors to influence the presidential election.

Ms. Park’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

International free speech advocates — including Reporters Without Borders and Frank La Rue, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on the freedom of opinion and expression — have voiced concerns about a lack of tolerance for dissent in South Korea, where defamation is a criminal offense.

Mr. Park, the Korea University law professor, said that one of the biggest problems with the judicial practices in South Korea was that they hampered public scrutiny and the role of media as a watchdog by placing the onus of proof in a defamation or false-rumor case not on prosecutors or those claiming to have been defamed but on the defendants, even when the alleged victims were public figures.

In 2011, Chung Bong-ju, Mr. Choo’s colleague at the podcast, was thrown into prison for one year when he could not substantiate an allegation he had raised that former President Lee Myung-bak was involved in a stock fraud case.

Many conservative South Koreans hated the co-hosts of the podcast, accusing them of irresponsible statements, character assassination and political cronyism passing itself off as satire. But they were wildly popular among young people who regarded the podcast as an alternative to the country’s mainstream media, which they considered pro-government and conservative.

Although most of the allegations on the podcast were just that, some of them helped break the hottest news in South Korea. It was among the first to suspect the country’s intelligence agency of involvement in a secret online campaign to try to discredit the opposition candidates in the December election. Last month, the police announced that at least two government intelligence agents had been involved in such an operation. Prosecutors have since expanded the investigation, raiding the headquarters of the spy agency.

Prosecutors deny they were politically motivated when investigating government critics like Mr. Choo. But their detractors said that they were eager to press charges to show their loyalty to political power.

“I don’t think this kind of thing can happen except in a backward country ruled by an authoritarian government bent on stifling freedom of expression,” said Lee Jae-jeong, Mr. Choo’s defense lawyer, referring to prosecutors’ move to arrest Mr. Choo.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/world/asia/south-korea-seeks-arrest-of-podcaster-choo-chin-woo.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Judge Denies City’s Bid for Outtakes of Movie on Central Park Jogger Case

A federal lawsuit brought by the men has been pending for 10 years. As part of the city’s defense, its lawyers last year subpoenaed notes and outtakes from Mr. Burns’s film, “The Central Park Five,” which was released last year and included extensive interviews with the men.

Mr. Burns, who made the film with his daughter, Sarah Burns, and her husband, David McMahon, fought the subpoena, describing it as an assault on journalism that would have a chilling effect on reporting of sensitive cases.

City lawyers argued that Mr. Burns’s production company had veered from journalism into advocacy on behalf of the five, in part because he had publicly said he hoped the film would encourage the city to finally settle the case.

Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis of United States District Court in Manhattan rejected the city’s contention that the issue was similar to a federal appellate court ruling in 2011 concerning another documentary filmmaker, Joe Berlinger. In that case, Mr. Berlinger had to turn over outtakes from “Crude,” a 2009 film about a group of Ecuadoreans who were suing Chevron, saying that oil fields established there by Texaco (now owned by Chevron) polluted their water supply.

Whereas Mr. Berlinger had been asked to make a film from the Ecuadoreans’ perspective and removed a scene from the movie at the request of their lawyer, the Burns team had remained independent, the judge found.

Judge Ellis said that the city’s comparisons of Mr. Burns to Mr. Berlinger were “misplaced” and that having a point of view did not necessarily preclude the protections against subpoenas generally granted to journalists.

“Indeed, it seems likely that a filmmaker would have a point of view going into a project,” Judge Ellis wrote.

The judge criticized city lawyers for mischaracterizing Mr. Burns’s comment to suggest his purpose was to affect the lawsuit.

“The manipulation of the quote in this manner is troubling,” Judge Ellis wrote in a footnote.

Mr. Burns, who was vacationing with his family in Puerto Rico, said he “jumped up and down” when he learned of the decision.

“I think it’s a hugely important decision and I think it reverses some of the harmful effects of the Berlinger decision,” he said. He added that he hoped the decision returned the focus to “getting a resolution for something that has haunted New York for far too long.”

The five men, who as teenagers came to embody racial tensions in a city overtaken by rampant crime, confessed after being held and interviewed by the police for more than 24 hours. Though they recanted almost immediately, all five were convicted, based largely on their confessions.

About a decade after their convictions, a man who had been convicted of a string of rapes on the Upper East Side the same summer as the Central Park attack bumped into one of the convicted men in an upstate prison. The convicted rapist, Matias Reyes, eventually confessed, and his DNA matched evidence found on the Central Park victim.

Robert M. Morgenthau, the Manhattan district attorney at the time, ordered a new investigation and, on his recommendation, a Manhattan judge vacated the convictions of the five men.

The city’s Law Department was “disappointed and reviewing our options,” said Celeste Koeleveld, the city’s executive assistant corporation counsel.

“While journalistic privilege under the law is very important, we firmly believe it did not apply here,” she said in a statement. “This film is a one-sided advocacy piece that depicts the plaintiffs’ version of events as undisputed fact. It is our view that we should be able to view the complete interviews, not just those portions that the filmmakers chose to include.”

Judge Ellis also ruled that the city failed to meet the requirements for subpoenas to journalists for nonconfidential material: that the material would be significant and relevant to its case and was unavailable elsewhere. He said pretrial depositions would give the city’s lawyers ample opportunity to question the five men.

“It’s a marvelous decision for documentary filmmakers and point-of-view journalists,” Mr. Burns’s lawyer, John Siegal, said. “And it’s an important victory for the media industry generally.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/nyregion/judge-denies-citys-bid-for-outtakes-of-movie-on-central-park-jogger-case.html?partner=rss&emc=rss