S Korea extends travel ban on Japanese journalist on trial for defaming Park

The late dictator's daughter is moving South Korea back to the bad old days. A pity just when the country was coming up in the world.

The one doesn't imply the other, especially as reasons were given to negate "Neither did Kato, then". Already been through that, turbotsat, as paraphrased from a thread recalled from memory, that I can't be bothered to google since you can't either, apparently: 'Kato made the connection by explicitly connecting two sections of Choi's article that Choi himself did not connect except by including in the same article, probably from cleverness stemming from a desire to poke at authority and still avoid prosecution, rather than any actual state of innocence'.

I've read both columns and the so-called 'defense' used by the author of Chosun Ilbo is quite lame, IMO. Seriously. It's him who mentioned the recently divorced status of the ex-staffer. But as the testimonies indicate, the only reason why Chosun Ilbo's author is not targeted is simply because the citizens haven't filed a complaint to the prosecutors.

Or, the ROK feds would like to prosecute Choi, and can't, he being too cunning, but can prosecute Kato, and have, he falling into Choi's trap. Lots of interpretations available. BTW, the 'other media' hasn't seemed to be too interested in ferreting out details freely available but detrimental to their case arguing 'hypocrisy and double standard', so I don't feel a need to give much weight to what they point out.

See above. As the testimonies indicate, the accusers really don't care the contents of Chosun Ilbo nor the tabloids but wanted to file a complaint to Sankei simply because it's deemed to them as "right wing, anti-Korea" journalism.

Or, he (Kato's colleague) is just smart enough not to step in it. Is it wacky for Korea to prosecute defamation? Should they check with nigelboy for a briefing on the the relevant statutes from his home country in the Commonwealth (or wherever the hello nigelboy hails from), before proceeding with prosecution of a Korean case in Korea? It appears Kato's colleague has got a better idea of the possibilities than you or Kato had.

Where I'm from, such moronic case would be lucky if the court ever goes through a civil defamation case. Even in a civil case, it would be the plaintiff (him or herself) that would file a complaint, and not a third person.

TS: 1) did not make the connection Kato did between the President and the staffer

nigelboy: Neither did Kato, then.

The one doesn't imply the other, especially as reasons were given to negate "Neither did Kato, then". Already been through that, turbotsat, as paraphrased from a thread recalled from memory, that I can't be bothered to google since you can't either, apparently: 'Kato made the connection by explicitly connecting two sections of Choi's article that Choi himself did not connect except by including in the same article, probably from cleverness stemming from a desire to poke at authority and still avoid prosecution, rather than any actual state of innocence'.

NB: ... That seemed to be the 'hypocrisy' and double standard that the other media is pointing out.

Or, the ROK feds would like to prosecute Choi, and can't, he being too cunning, but can prosecute Kato, and have, he falling into Choi's trap. Lots of interpretations available. BTW, the 'other media' hasn't seemed to be too interested in ferreting out details freely available but detrimental to their case arguing 'hypocrisy and double standard', so I don't feel a need to give much weight to what they point out.

NB: ... Because he knows how wacky Korea can be.

Or, he (Kato's colleague) is just smart enough not to step in it. Is it wacky for Korea to prosecute defamation? Should they check with nigelboy for a briefing on the the relevant statutes from his home country in the Commonwealth (or wherever the hello nigelboy hails from), before proceeding with prosecution of a Korean case in Korea? It appears Kato's colleague has got a better idea of the possibilities than you or Kato had.

NB: ... There is nothing improper.

Married, divorced, whatever, the implication was of an improper relationship, thus Choi's condemnation. And otherwise why the brouhaha?

NB: Chosun Ilbo named the ex staffer. Financial newsletter and the tabloids connected the dots. Kato merely reported those events.

See text between single quotes starting with 'Kato made the connection ...', above.

What civilized country can ...

You can make up any definition of "civilized country" you want, and so arbitrarily decide what countries are civilized or not.

E.g., hijab permitted, hijab banned, hijab mandatory. Where the boundaries of 'civilized' are drawn depend on where you choose to stand.

1) did not make the connection Kato did between the President and the staffer

Neither did Kato, then.

2) condemned Kato in a later article for making the connection, and

See above.

3) is not under charge by the Korean governmen

That seemed to be the 'hypocrisy' and double standard that the other media is pointing out.

own Japanese colleague on the Korean board of Kato's newspaper said that he himself would not have make the mistake Kato did

Because he knows how wacky Korea can be.

that if implying an improper relationship between the unmarried President and a married ex-staffer

The ex staffer was divorced. There is nothing improper.

only on connecting dots the original Korean article's author didn't connect and on anonymous comments in a financial markets blog isn't defamatory, what is

Chosun Ilbo named the ex staffer. Financial newsletter and the tabloids connected the dots. Kato merely reported those events.

Now my question.

What civilized country can a prosecution indict an individual on defamation charges filed by a third party who has no relationship with alleged accused?

turbotsat: It's not defamatory to imply a clandestine relationship between the unmarried President and a married staffer?

Michael Grant: The actual title of the article doesn't mention any name other than Park's! So where do you get "married staffer" from?

From all the other articles we've seen on this topic, and from looking up information for replies to the comments in them. Probably a google of "site:japantoday tatsuya kato" would show you those articles and comments if you're interested.

nigelboy: A column written in Japanese for the Japanese reading public (Sankei column written by Kato) that basically reports such 'defamatory' implications circulated within Korea's own media (Chosun Ilbo column, Financial newsletter, and tabloid) is not.

Except that from all the posts in the other threads on this topic you might remember that the Korean reporter whose article Kato based his article on 1) did not make the connection Kato did between the President and the staffer, 2) condemned Kato in a later article for making the connection, and 3) is not under charge by the Korean government, and that Kato's own Japanese colleague on the Korean board of Kato's newspaper said that he himself would not have make the mistake Kato did, based on his much-longer experience living and reporting in Korea (12 or 20 years vs. Kato's 3 years, IIRC), and that if implying an improper relationship between the unmarried President and a married ex-staffer based only on connecting dots the original Korean article's author didn't connect and on anonymous comments in a financial markets blog isn't defamatory, what is? (More or less, and more or less based on Google machine translations of various sources in various permutations of Korean / Japanese / English.)

He'll essentially be a prisoner of South Korea for eight months and maybe more. The question is whether he's being treated more harshly because of the high profile of this case. This is after all only a defamation case.

She could have been in emergency meetings pertaining to NK during those hours, but it is no reason to detain him.

The actual title of the article doesn't mention any name other than Park's! So where do you get "married staffer" from?

It's not defamatory to imply a clandestine relationship between the unmarried President and a married staffer?

A column written in Japanese for the Japanese reading public (Sankei column written by Kato) that basically reports such 'defamatory' implications circulated within Korea's own media (Chosun Ilbo column, Financial newsletter, and tabloid) is not.

No civilized country's justice would even consider this as 'defamation' of a criminal nature considering the FACT that it's not the President herself who stated that she was 'defamed' but a member of Right wing civic group who believe it or not, testified that he discovered this 'translated' Sankei column from a site called "News Pro".

The testimony is linked below. It basically reaffirms the fact the he (the accuser) couldn't point out which part of Kato's column was 'defaming' and basically admitted that he got mad because the title of the "News Pro" had was "Sankei, Pak missing 7 hours. Private meeting with Chung Yoon-hoi?"

http://www.sankei.com/premium/news/141225/prm1412250007-n29.html

It's not defamatory to imply a clandestine relationship between the unmarried President and a married staffer?

Only if he knew it to be false.

At a preliminary court hearing in November, the journalist insisted he had no intention of defaming Park.

It's not defamatory to imply a clandestine relationship between the unmarried President and a married staffer?

Note to self:

When in South Korea, don't insult Mrs. Park, and don't 'promote' communism.

And its very nice to know, of course, by what standard I will be judged when opening my mouth. I am very thankful that the law clearly states what is defamation against Park and what is promoting communism.

This journalist simply repeated what some South Korean media were saying - but only he gets charged with liable. Every fascist government needs its obedient puppies, I guess.

This is similar to "Charie Case" in France,

No ! This journalist is charged with criminal libel punishable by up to seven years’ jail in SKorea and since his case is currently in progress, probably this ban is to avoid him to vanish in Japan and escape the trial, you cannot compare this to Charlie Hebdo, let's be serious.

This is similar to "Charie Case" in France, suppressed freedom of speech not by terrorism but by authority.

President Park is starting to seem more like a Great Leader every day. Getting hard to tell the 2 Koreas apart.