That stupid election law news
03/20/2008
Commenting is closed for this article.
Everybody felt it that way. The Elections Act, amended before the Presidential Election, has violated the Constitution. The law imposes a silence period, which is fine as long as it is applied to those who have identifiable interest (e.g., financial or political) in a certain candidate or a political party. But, when it’s applied to the general public, it’s … well, no longer a democracy. Worse, the revised provision was intended to be applied to the so-called netizens and bloggers.
Thinking like that is one thing, and hearing a court announcing it is quite another. Suwon District Court has declared a non-politician citizen (a bank employee) not guilty.
The Court said, “The prohibitions in the Elections Act are complicated, are difficult to understand, and contradict our common sense that a citizen with a voting right cannot post her support or objection on the internet. Therefore, a person should be held in violation of the provision only when she fully understood all of the constructive elements of the provision, and only when she had the intention to violate it.” It also said, “There is no evidence that shows the defendant, when commenting on a presidential candidate on the internet news, had a scienter, or had the intention to influence the election.” (translation and emphasis by me; Daum news)
Well, I’m glad you said it. Really. Still, I believe the phrase “the intention to influence the election” is funny because it’s so stupid. Why the hell would we spend time reading about candidates, and bother to go to vote, if not to influence the election?
