By Yang Moo-jin
The recent passage of the "anti-leaflet law" in the National Assembly came as an amendment to the Development of Inter-Korean Relations Act to prohibit the sending of leaflets with anti-North Korea messages across the border.
The opposition People Power Party and critics claimed the amendment violates freedom of speech and works against the efforts to improve human rights in North Korea. Some even belittled it as a "law upholding the order from Kim Yo-jong," North Korean leader Kim Jong-un's sister. Is this really true?
The people of the Republic of Korea (ROK) enjoy sufficient freedom of speech following the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Constitution. However, freedom of speech cannot take precedence over the right to life and the right to safety of people in the border regions.
From the July 4 South-North Joint Statement in 1972 to the Panmunjeom Declaration in 2018, the two Koreas have repeatedly agreed to cease slander and leaflet campaigns.
However, tensions between the two Koreas have occasionally escalated as some private organizations continued carrying out inappropriate leaflet campaigns. In 2014, the risk of a clash soared as the North Korean military fired antiaircraft guns to shoot down balloons carrying leaflets, with some of the shells landing on ROK civilian areas and ROK armed forces firing back.
Many of the total 1.12 million border region residents expressed difficulties due to the violation of the right to life, residential safety and the decrease in the number of tourists amid lingering instability because of the leaflet campaigns. They suffered from a shrinking local economy and deteriorating living conditions. A total of 3,111 people filed a legislative petition on this matter.
The international covenant stipulates that freedom of speech can be restricted by law when there is a need to respect others' rights, maintain national security or protect public order, and so on. The Constitution also stipulates that freedom of speech can be restricted by law when needed to assure national security, maintain order or promote public welfare.
It is appropriate to restrict leaflet scattering as it infringes upon the right to life and right to safety of people in the border regions. It inflicts harm on national security by building up tensions between the South and the North, and begets conflict between border region residents and leaflet dropping organizations.
In 2016, the Supreme Court also ruled that "leaflet scattering which causes a danger to people's lives and bodies cannot be protected under the freedom of speech." In particular, the amendment is not a fundamental restriction of freedom of speech but a minimum restriction of a certain "method" of freedom of speech such as the leaflet drops.
Moreover, one is not penalized just for sending out leaflets. The amendment stipulates punishment only when the action inflicts harm on people or is a cause of grave danger.
Violating the right to life and the right to safety under the pretext of improving North Korean human rights is an irresponsible act of contradiction. There exists no evidence that scattering leaflets improves North Korean human rights.
On the contrary, it endangers defector families by strengthening the social control of North Korean authorities and brings about an adverse impact on and the deterioration of North Korean human rights.
Even defectors have testified that leaflets containing unconfirmed, one-sided arguments or indecent expressions are not effective at all. Defectors evidenced that one-sided denunciation and insults against the North Korean regime caused side effects rather than bringing change to North Korean perceptions.
Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), also mentioned that "leaflet drops are not an effective means of information penetration" in his interview with VOA on June 12. Efforts from civil society and the international community to practically improve North Korean human rights are important.
However, normal means including the expansion of inter-Korean dialogue, exchange, cooperation and extending North Korea's contact with the international community are more effective in practically improving human rights.
With such an understanding, the National Assembly has continuously strived to legislate relevant laws to regulate leaflet drops since the 18th National Assembly. It is illogical to take no account of such efforts and refer to the amendment as a North Korea-pleaser based on the statements made by Kim Yo-jong this summer.
The basic principle of society is that "the freedom and safety of others shall not be violated for my freedom." I hope the leaflet-scattering private organizations stop their actions that violate the right to life and safety of border region residents and fail to improve human rights. They should make practical efforts to enhance North Korean human rights.
Yang Moo-jin (yangmj@kyungnam.ac.kr) is professor at the University of North Korean Studies and vice chairman of the Korean Association of North Korean Studies. He is also a standing committee member of the National Unification Advisory Council and policy consultant at the Ministry of Unification.
 |
The opposition People Power Party and critics claimed the amendment violates freedom of speech and works against the efforts to improve human rights in North Korea. Some even belittled it as a "law upholding the order from Kim Yo-jong," North Korean leader Kim Jong-un's sister. Is this really true?
The people of the Republic of Korea (ROK) enjoy sufficient freedom of speech following the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Constitution. However, freedom of speech cannot take precedence over the right to life and the right to safety of people in the border regions.
From the July 4 South-North Joint Statement in 1972 to the Panmunjeom Declaration in 2018, the two Koreas have repeatedly agreed to cease slander and leaflet campaigns.
However, tensions between the two Koreas have occasionally escalated as some private organizations continued carrying out inappropriate leaflet campaigns. In 2014, the risk of a clash soared as the North Korean military fired antiaircraft guns to shoot down balloons carrying leaflets, with some of the shells landing on ROK civilian areas and ROK armed forces firing back.
Many of the total 1.12 million border region residents expressed difficulties due to the violation of the right to life, residential safety and the decrease in the number of tourists amid lingering instability because of the leaflet campaigns. They suffered from a shrinking local economy and deteriorating living conditions. A total of 3,111 people filed a legislative petition on this matter.
The international covenant stipulates that freedom of speech can be restricted by law when there is a need to respect others' rights, maintain national security or protect public order, and so on. The Constitution also stipulates that freedom of speech can be restricted by law when needed to assure national security, maintain order or promote public welfare.
It is appropriate to restrict leaflet scattering as it infringes upon the right to life and right to safety of people in the border regions. It inflicts harm on national security by building up tensions between the South and the North, and begets conflict between border region residents and leaflet dropping organizations.
In 2016, the Supreme Court also ruled that "leaflet scattering which causes a danger to people's lives and bodies cannot be protected under the freedom of speech." In particular, the amendment is not a fundamental restriction of freedom of speech but a minimum restriction of a certain "method" of freedom of speech such as the leaflet drops.
Moreover, one is not penalized just for sending out leaflets. The amendment stipulates punishment only when the action inflicts harm on people or is a cause of grave danger.
Violating the right to life and the right to safety under the pretext of improving North Korean human rights is an irresponsible act of contradiction. There exists no evidence that scattering leaflets improves North Korean human rights.
On the contrary, it endangers defector families by strengthening the social control of North Korean authorities and brings about an adverse impact on and the deterioration of North Korean human rights.
Even defectors have testified that leaflets containing unconfirmed, one-sided arguments or indecent expressions are not effective at all. Defectors evidenced that one-sided denunciation and insults against the North Korean regime caused side effects rather than bringing change to North Korean perceptions.
Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), also mentioned that "leaflet drops are not an effective means of information penetration" in his interview with VOA on June 12. Efforts from civil society and the international community to practically improve North Korean human rights are important.
However, normal means including the expansion of inter-Korean dialogue, exchange, cooperation and extending North Korea's contact with the international community are more effective in practically improving human rights.
With such an understanding, the National Assembly has continuously strived to legislate relevant laws to regulate leaflet drops since the 18th National Assembly. It is illogical to take no account of such efforts and refer to the amendment as a North Korea-pleaser based on the statements made by Kim Yo-jong this summer.
The basic principle of society is that "the freedom and safety of others shall not be violated for my freedom." I hope the leaflet-scattering private organizations stop their actions that violate the right to life and safety of border region residents and fail to improve human rights. They should make practical efforts to enhance North Korean human rights.
Yang Moo-jin (yangmj@kyungnam.ac.kr) is professor at the University of North Korean Studies and vice chairman of the Korean Association of North Korean Studies. He is also a standing committee member of the National Unification Advisory Council and policy consultant at the Ministry of Unification.
![[INTERVIEW] Production company AStory expects great success with 'Extraordinary Attorney Woo' franchise](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/06bfe09b25694aafbd347202cbad4257.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
