Comments on: Netizens censored in South Korean Presidential election http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2007/12/24/netizens-censored-in-south-korean-presidential-election/ Exploring the impact of the net and the netizen on journalism and toward a more participatory form of citizenship. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 04:12:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: jrhjrhjrh http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2007/12/24/netizens-censored-in-south-korean-presidential-election/comment-page-1/#comment-46 jrhjrhjrh Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:24:51 +0000 http://taz.de/blogs/netizenblog/2007/12/24/netizens-censored-in-south-korean-presidential-election/#comment-46 My view is that the application in this election of the election law was a violation of the human rights of the South Korean people. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) contains: "Article 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. ' ' ' Article 29 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." To me, preventing netizens or anyone from expressing personal opinions about candidates or an election is a violation of the universal right to freedom of thought. I would be happy to hear other thoughts on this. My view is that the application in this election of the election law was a violation of the human rights of the South Korean people. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) contains:

“Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

‘ ‘ ‘

Article 29

2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

To me, preventing netizens or anyone from expressing personal opinions about candidates or an election is a violation of the universal right to freedom of thought. I would be happy to hear other thoughts on this.

]]>