The Seoul Western District Court ruled in favor of JTBC drama 'Snowdrop' despite an injunction by a civic group.
Since its premiere, 'Snowdrop' has faced allegations of historical distortion, and over 300,000 citizens signed a Blue House petition to take the drama off air. Civic group Declaration of Global Citizens in Korea filed an injunction against JTBC on December 22 to cancel the drama.
However, the court has dismissed the injunction on December 29, stating, "Even if 'Snowdrop' is based on historical distortions, the probability the public will accept the inaccuracies blindly is low." The court also added, "Unless the content of the drama directly involves the civic group, it's difficult to argue it infringes on the group's rights."
Court rules 'Snowdrop' drama can continue to air despite injunction by civic group
-
I mean ofc that is the right thing!
Government and law shouldnt interfere with these things
Its up to people who are offended to boycott JTBC, its completely an individual decision
-
Incase it a bit unclear THE COURT IS NOT SAYING THERE IS NO DISTORTION (and to reiterate what legal scholars have been saying since day 1), the court ruling is 3 fold and none of what they said ruled for either side or made any comment saying there is no distortion, they are basically saying we are a democracy which means free speech exists and if we had the right to make this judgement we need it from an affected person and a big enough issue/reason to make us limit freedom of speech.
1 - there is no law preventing historical distortion of the pro-democracy movement so the court doesn't have jurisdiction to make a judgement on it.
2 - if such a law existed the charity don't have the right to make a claim, historically courts tend to give injections to the directly affected party, so Elton John in his injunction to stop people reading about his sexual exploits could not be named by newspapers thanks to the injunction. SO the claim would need to come from someone whose name was used in the drama or whose story was clearly used and distorted and said person is not able to make the claim themselves (either dead or not legally able) so the charity is doing it on this specific persons behalf, the charity has neither ground.
3 - every time courts in democracies give out injunctions they have to balance freedom of speech and expression with the protection of the person, the wider impact and how it will impact public good. They ask, is the damage big enough to stop freedom of speech (most times they tend to say no because courts are very protective of human rights), how will this impact the wider public (in this case they thought the history is pretty recent so most will know its inaccuracies, the viewer ratings are low in Korea so it doesn't seem it will have a large impact on how people see the history, so the damage isn't enough to demand they stop it) and what could stopping the broadcast lead to (will this limit freedom of speech/expression in a large way that could lead to the court controlling what people can and can't write about and will it lead to further suits from people over smaller inaccuracies).
-
Display More
Incase it a bit unclear THE COURT IS NOT SAYING THERE IS NO DISTORTION (and to reiterate what legal scholars have been saying since day 1), the court ruling is 3 fold and none of what they said ruled for either side or made any comment saying there is no distortion, they are basically saying we are a democracy which means free speech exists and if we had the right to make this judgement we need it from an affected person and a big enough issue/reason to make us limit freedom of speech.
1 - there is no law preventing historical distortion of the pro-democracy movement so the court doesn't have jurisdiction to make a judgement on it.
2 - if such a law existed the charity don't have the right to make a claim, historically courts tend to give injections to the directly affected party, so Elton John in his injunction to stop people reading about his sexual exploits could not be named by newspapers thanks to the injunction. SO the claim would need to come from someone whose name was used in the drama or whose story was clearly used and distorted and said person is not able to make the claim themselves (either dead or not legally able) so the charity is doing it on this specific persons behalf, the charity has neither ground.
3 - every time courts in democracies give out injunctions they have to balance freedom of speech and expression with the protection of the person, the wider impact and how it will impact public good. They ask, is the damage big enough to stop freedom of speech (most times they tend to say no because courts are very protective of human rights), how will this impact the wider public (in this case they thought the history is pretty recent so most will know its inaccuracies, the viewer ratings are low in Korea so it doesn't seem it will have a large impact on how people see the history, so the damage isn't enough to demand they stop it) and what could stopping the broadcast lead to (will this limit freedom of speech/expression in a large way that could lead to the court controlling what people can and can't write about and will it lead to further suits from people over smaller inaccuracies).
On the 29th , Division 21 of the Civil Settlement of the Seoul Western District Court (Chief Judge Park Byung-tae) rejected the application for an injunction against the screening of ' Seolganghwa' made by the civic group Universal Declaration of Citizenship against JTBC . The court decided that even if 'Seolganghwa' was based on a distorted view of history, viewers would not blindly accept it. In response, JTBC responded, "'Solganghwa' is a creative work that shows the personal narratives of those who were used and sacrificed by powerful people. . He added that the content of the drama is far from distorting history or defending dictatorship.
-
On the 29th , Division 21 of the Civil Settlement of the Seoul Western District Court (Chief Judge Park Byung-tae) rejected the application for an injunction against the screening of ' Seolganghwa' made by the civic group Universal Declaration of Citizenship against JTBC . The court decided that even if 'Seolganghwa' was based on a distorted view of history, viewers would not blindly accept it. In response, JTBC responded, "'Solganghwa' is a creative work that shows the personal narratives of those who were used and sacrificed by powerful people. . He added that the content of the drama is far from distorting history or defending dictatorship.
So I made a comment on the court judgement and what it meant so you linked back to a comment from JTBC who are making the drama and want to keep it going? The court literally said they haven't got the right to make a judgement on if it is a distortion or not because there is no law against it and in your statement the court clearly said 'if it was based on a distortion of history' people aren't dumb enough to accept it. Totally different from the court saying there is no distortion.
Participate now!
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
