This document discusses three elements of transparency and governance: freedom of speech, freedom of information laws, and government 2.0. It notes issues with criminal defamation laws in Korea and censorship of online content. Regarding freedom of information laws, it highlights that 27% of information requests are denied by claiming disclosure is blocked by other laws, but without substantive judicial review. The document also discusses issues with Korea's voluntary disclosure of government data and court records, noting micro-segmentation of data and lack of standardization that limits its usefulness. Organizations working on these issues in Korea are also listed.

1. Transparency and
Governance
Kyung Sin Park
@unbeatenpath kyungsinpark@korea.ac.kr
Professor, Korea University Law School
Director, Open Net Korea
Director, PSPD Law Center

2. Transparency: 3 elements
• Freedom of speech
• Freedom of information law
• Government 2.0

3. Freedom of Speech 1
• Criminal defamation –2,000 defamations and 9,000 insults/yr
28% of all people incarcerated for defamation
• Strategic prosecutions against public participation (SPAPP cf.
SLAPP) – American Beef, Sewol Ferry, KORS Corvette Cheonan
– 10% of insult cases are for police officers, and hundreds for
election candidates!
• Truth defamation – non-payment of wage, unfair trade
practices, etc. – Could it save Sewol from happening?
• Broadcasting regulation – “fairness” review – (1) Is it good?
(2) Is it fairly practiced in Korea? - Could it save Sewol from
happening?

4. Freedom of Speech 2
• Why Internet important? – the interactive nature of
communication + anonymity  giving powerless individuals
the same power of attracting attention and obtaining
information (“History is written by Winners. What do losers
write?”)  fair market economy and substantive democracy -
(1) Online Electioneering Case + (2) Real Name Law Case =
“Online is the only medium for real democracy”
• Reality of Internet content regulation – (1) “mandatory” notice
and takedown of lawful contents ; (2) administrative
censorship “necessary for nurturing sound communication
ethics”; (3) outlawing anonymous communication (e.g. SIM
card registration, warrantless identification of online users)

5. Freedom of Information Law
• 2014: 600K requests, 86% filled fully, 10% partially filled, 4%
denied
• Per capita, very high numbers but truth defamation reduces the
voluntary disclosure and necessitates more FOIA requests for civic
discourse
• 27% of non-disclosure – “Specified by other laws or regulations to
be not disclosed” – No substantive judicial review, Usually very
relevant packets of information that Gov’s don’t want u to see.
1. If Right to Know is Constitutional, Can Legislature Unilaterally Block it?
2. Can administrative regulation block right to know?
3. What if Laws and regulations delegate further down to administrative
agencies’ discretion? e.g. Subsversive books case
• No discipline for bad faith non-disclosure, any country?

6. Government 2.0
• Voluntary disclosure of files (data.go.kr) and boasts of 16K
data sets and 200 Open APIs but . . . .(1) too much MICRO-
SEGMENTATION – (2) APIs not standardized
• Court case database –”Right to be forgotten”  need for
anonymization  cost and time of anonymization is usually
the pretext for not disclosing  made available on demand
of a specific case number for a fee for anonymization  but
what happens when ppl don’t know what case to demand?
• Result : lack of objective data to predict court results  low rates of
voluntary and satisfactory settlements/judgments  high rates of
appeal  very high number of cases  overworked judges 
unwillingness to open up.

7. What Are We Doing About it?
• www.opennetkorea.org
• PSPD Law Center http://www.peoplepower21.org/English
• www.transparency.or.kr