Kim Soo Hyun Prevention Act: Press Ethics Committee warned 25 media outlets for reportage on it amid Kim Sae Ron dating row
Media outlets asked not to use Kim Soo Hyun's name in reportage of petition for amendment of s*xual crime laws
25 media outlets covering the Kim Soo Hyun Prevention Act faced warning from the Korea Press Ethics Commission during their 997th meeting, as reported by K-media SBS Entertainment News on July 7. The Act aimed at raising the age of statutory r*pe for minors. The commission noted that using Kim Soo Hyun's real name in the article headlines could stigmatize him as a cr*minal, potentially causing emotional and mental harm to him, his family and fans.
What laws did journalists breach while covering the Kim Soo Hyun Prevention Act?
As per, the Korea Press Ethics Commission to the 25 media outlets faced the cautionary notice for breaching journalistic ethics. The outlets were found guilty of violating Article 10 (Principles of Titles) and Article 11 (Respect for Honor and Credit) by using titles that linked actor Kim Soo Hyun to unverified allegations. An example of a headline that was flagged as unethical by the commission is– "Kim Soo Hyun's grooming sexual crime against Kim Sae Ron, who was a minor, was revealed and angered the public."
They emphasized that responsible journalism requires verifying claims before publishing them, especially when reporting on such sensitive topics. By failing to do so, the media houses compromised their responsibility to report accurately and fairly. The commission explained that 'citing the petitioner's one-sided claims as they are or using the bill title with Kim Soo Hyun's real name as the title of the article, raises concern that it may stigmatize the individual as a criminal when facts have not been confirmed.'
This incident highlighted the importance of adhering to press ethics guidelines to prevent harm to individuals and communities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
HC: Bar councils don't employ advocates, so no POSH panel
Mumbai: The Bombay HC Monday said the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, will not apply to complaints by advocates to bar councils as there is no employer-employee relationship between them, reports Rosy Sequeira. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Hearing a petition seeking direction to bar councils to constitute committees to address sexual harassment complaints against advocates, a bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne said the POSH Act will apply to cases where there is a relationship of employer and employee, and the bar councils cannot be said to be "employer of advocates". However, the Act will be applicable to employees of the bar councils. Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne were hearing a petition by UNS Women Association seeking direction to the Bar Council of India (BCI) and Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) to constitute a permanent grievance redressal committee of women advocates in all state bar council offices and bar associations to address sexual harassment complaints against advocates as per the Supreme Court's Oct 2012 directions in Medha Kotwal Lele's case. The petition also sought implementation of the POSH Act and a committee of lawyers, NGOs, and retired women judges to review and look into lacunas in the Act. Senior advocate Milind Sathe, for BCMG, and advocate Shekhar Jagtap, for BCI, submitted that there is no employer-employee relationship between advocates and bar councils. Hence, the establishment of an internal complaints committee (ICC) is not applicable as per POSH Act. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now They said there is a provision for local committees headed by the district collector to receive complaints of sexual harassment for a workplace having fewer than 10 employees. However, neither ICC nor the local committees can be invoked by women advocates. Sathe said under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, there is remedy for professional and other misconduct. The judges referred to sections of the POSH Act relating to the constitution of ICC and local committees and also considered the definition of employer. In the order, they said it is evident that these provisions will apply to a case where there is a relationship of employer and employee. Therefore, neither BCI nor BCMG "can be said to be employer of advocates" and "therefore the 2013 Act will not apply to advocates," they added. However, the POSH Act will be applicable to employees of BCI and BCMG. Sathe and Jagtap said BCMG and BCI have constituted ICCs to address grievances of their employees. Additional govt pleader Jyoti Chavan said local committees have also been established. The judges noted that as far as the grievance of women advocates is concerned, there is a forum available under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. Disposing of the PIL, they said no further order is required to be passed.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Dropped from official holiday calendar by L-G, ruling NC starts preparations for ‘Martyrs Day' in Srinagar
Ruling National Conference (NC) on Monday (July 7, 2025) held a special meeting in Srinagar to review the preparations on the occasion of the death anniversary of Begum Akbar Jehan Abdullah, wife of the party founder Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah, and 'Martyrs' Day' on 13th July. The preparations assumed significance because J&K Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha removed the 'Martyrs Day' from the official holiday calendar of the government after the Centre ended J&K's special constitutional status in 2019. 'A review meeting was convened at the party headquarters, Nawa-e-Subha, Srinagar, to assess the ongoing arrangements for the annual observance of the death anniversary of Madar-e-Maharban Begum Akbar Jehan Abdullah (on July 11) and Martyrs' Day on 13th July. The meeting was chaired by the General Secretary, Haji Ali Muhammad Sagar,' a NC spokesman said. Mr. Sagar directed the party cadre to ensure a special prayer ceremony is held at the Naqsband Sahib graveyard where 22 locals, who lost their lives in the rebellion against the Dogra rule, are buried. Top J&K government officials, including the then Governor, would join the regional parties in paying tributes to those killed by the soldiers of the Dogra monarch in 1931 in Kashmir. However, no official ceremony is held at the graveyard of those who were killed in 1931 after 2019. There is a growing demand from the regional parties to reincorporate July 13 in the holiday calendar of J&K. The ruling NC too advocated its inclusion but failed to do so because of the special powers granted to the L-G in the Union Territory (UT). 'The government should declare July 13 as a gazetted holiday in memory of the martyrs of 1931. The 'Martyrs' Day' should be observed at the State level, as it used to be,' J&K Apni Party president Altaf Bukhari said. 'This government is in danger only because of its underperformance and its failure to fulfil promises made to the people. Otherwise, it has a strong mandate for a full five-year term,' he added.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Bar council not an employer, no need for POSH panel: HC
Representative image MUMBAI: Bombay high court said on Monday that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 will not apply to complaints by advocates to bar councils as there is no employer-employee relationship between them. Hearing a petition seeking direction to bar councils to set up committees to address sexual harassment complaints against advocates, a bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne said POSH Act will apply to cases where there is an employer-employee relationship, and bar councils cannot be said to be "employer of advocates". The petition also sought the implementation of the POSH Act and a committee of lawyers, NGOs, and retired women judges to review and look into lacunas in the Act. The bench were hearing a petition by UNS Women Association seeking direction to the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to constitute a permanent grievance redressal committee of female advocates in all state bar council offices and bar associations to address sexual harassment complaints against advocates as per Supreme Court's Oct 2012 directions in Medha Kotwal Lele's case. The petition also sought the implementation of POSH Act and a committee of lawyers, NGOs, and retired female judges to review and look into lacunas in the Act. Senior advocate Milind Sathe, for BCMG, and advocate Shekhar Jagtap, for BCI, submitted that there is no employer-employee relationship between advocates and bar councils. Hence, the establishment of an internal complaints committee is not applicable as per POSH Act. They said there is a provision for local committees headed by the district collector to receive complaints of sexual harassment for a workplace having fewer than 10 employees. However, neither ICC nor the local committees can be invoked by female advocates. Sathe said under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, there is remedy for professional and other misconduct. The judges referred to sections of the POSH Act relating to the constitution of ICC and local committees and also considered the definition of employer. In the order, they said it is evident that these provisions will apply to a case where there is a relationship of employer and employee. Therefore, neither BCI nor BCMG 'can be said to be employer of advocates' and 'therefore the 2013 Act will not apply to advocates', they added. However, POSH Act will be applicable to employees of BCI and BCMG. Sathe and Jagtap said BCMG and BCI have constituted ICCs to address grievances of their employees. Additional government pleader Jyoti Chavan said local committees have also been established. The judges noted that as far as the grievance of female advocates is concerned, there is a forum available under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, which provides for lodging complaints tantamount to professional and other misconduct.
