| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| | | Also, during the criminal trial of Ms. Park that followed the impeachment, it turned out that much of the news, especially those that had been distributed through personal broadcasts or social media had no grounds or were fake. Although Ms. Park was found guilty for most charges filed against her, it was this type of fake news such as that Ms. Park took viagra pills and had sex with a priest when the children on the ferry were drowning, that made people storm the streets. | |
>
> | How do we know?
Perhaps it was more the dead children and the corruption. Or the
stories, which may have been more true, that she was having sex with
Choi. Perhaps she was actually impeached for being a lesbian, which
is how it looked from NY, rather than because there was state money
paid for Ms Choi's daughter's horses, or influence behind her
university admission, all of which was—to be
blunt—rather familiar in the upper reaches of Korean politics
and society. Heretofore, however, it was sufficient to put
Presidents in jail for corruption after they left office, or to
drive them to suicide. From outside Korea, the misogyny and
homophobia seems more important than the particular content of the
rumors.
| | | Baby, One more time | |
<
< | Following the above developments in Korea, and learning about similar stories of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, I'm terrified about the consequences that the misuse of the internet can have on democracy. However, I also believe that democracy is still the best method to protect civil rights and to effectively and fairly run a country. There is an old saying in Korea that describes my feelings towards this issue, 'I hate you, but one more time'. It is used in situations where one loves another person so much that one cannot abandon the other person in spite of his/her faults and gives him/her another try. Therefore, rather than jumping to the conclusion that we should declare democracy dead because of the risks it faces in the internet society, I want to start with making small suggestions that hopefully will help prevent misuse of the internet for political purposes: | >
> | Following the above developments in Korea, and learning about similar stories of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, I'm terrified about the consequences that the misuse of the internet can have on democracy. However, I also believe that democracy is still the best method to protect civil rights and to effectively and fairly run a country. There is an old saying in Korea that describes my feelings towards this issue, 'I hate you, but one more time'. It is used in situations where one loves another person so much that one cannot abandon the other person in spite of his/her faults and gives him/her another try. Therefore, rather than jumping to the conclusion that we should declare democracy dead because of the risks it faces in the internet society,
Who has actually been doing this? It doesn't seem necessary to write an essay countering this argument unless someone is really making it.
I want to start with making small suggestions that hopefully will help prevent misuse of the internet for political purposes: | | | First, knowingly or negligently distributing news that is fake with the intention to favor a political party should be taken very seriously and punished accordingly. Although such acts already constitute a crime in many countries, my personal view is that the punishments are often disproportionate to their negative and mostly irreparable impacts. To deter people from doing so, it is necessary to impose more severe punishment for these type of offenses. | |
>
> |
It would be good, at this stage, at least to acknowledge the arguments that lie behind the US constitutional prohibition on punishing such activity at all. It's fine to disagree with that view of the relationship between free speech and democracy, but the arguments in favor of prohibiting criminalization of political speech aren't trivial and deserve to be reckoned with.
| | | Second, manipulating public opinions should be determined as a separate type of crime and should be subject to severe punishment. In the above case, Duru King was only convicted for impairing the operation of the server of the portal website because there was no other criminal offense applicable to his acts. | |
>
> |
On the other side is Justice Holmes' famous statement that "every idea is an incitement." Manipulating public opinion is the purpose of free speech, is it not?
| | | Third, it should be prohibited to monitor people's online activities for purposes that have not been properly disclosed to and consented by the individual. Although websites provide notices such as cookie policies, most time the information is insufficient, too vague. Moreover, they don't provide the option to 'opt-out' because it is either you agree to the policy or you cannot use this website. Further, one cannot choose the purpose and use of one's information and must either take it or leave it all. | |
>
> | It's not clear what
this paragraph has to do with the preceding parts of the draft. I
think the best route to a stronger essay is precisely to explore
further the relationship between this last call, for "data
protection" law, and democracy. That might help to explain the
complex relationship between problematic influence and core free
speech, which is presently covered over by the punitive tone
embodied in the idea of criminal regulation of political expression.
| | |
|
|