[Media Watch] Is the Government's Permit System for Reporting in Conflict Zones Justified?

Photographer Jeong Jin-young traveled to Ukraine to document the war in 2022, but his decision led to a criminal fine of 5 million won and a challenge to the unconstitutional law panel. The reason for the punishment was violating passport law, which essentially bans visits to war-torn regions. Regardless of the intention to report on the conflict, a foreign visit requires permission from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The court found that Jeong Jin-young did not request an exception to this rule. The danger of injury in conflict zones disproportionately affects national and societal interests, making it difficult to justify the freedom of reporting. The court's decision is difficult to accept, as it ignores a crucial fact. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not allow any visits for reporting purposes for about a month after the war broke out, but no notice or application was made for an exception.

Yet, the court deemed Jeong Jin-young's failure to follow an "nonexistent procedure" as the basis for punishment. The court's judgment also deviates from international reality. CNN sent a team of 75 reporters, while UK media sent over 50 journalists. International journalists continue to cover the frontlines in Ukraine today. Is Ukraine the only dangerous place for Korean journalists?

Conflict zone reporting plays a vital role in journalism. Nations worldwide, rather than banning reporting due to danger, ensure reporters' safety and protect journalists. Furthermore, countries limit access to conflict zones. The European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs emphasized in 2016 that limiting the free movement and access to conflict zones for journalists is unjustified.

Measures that make it difficult for journalists to access information or limit them arbitrarily can be considered a form of indirect censorship. Limiting access to a dangerous scene by the state before they can arrive sends a message of control over reporting and censorship. The court's decision contradicts this. The court judged that travel restrictions for journalistic purposes are not a preliminary examination but a procedure to grant permission for visiting dangerous regions.

The exception does not involve scrutinizing the content of reporting or censorship, but rather granting permission for visiting dangerous regions. The court's argument that dividing online journalists from private filming is difficult due to the popularity of activities like YouTube vlogs further weakens the justification of limiting such access.

The court decided that restricting the passport law for journalists and entertainers should not be prioritized over the value of conflict zone reporting. As a result, only 23 journalists have been granted permission to visit restricted countries since 2013, with an average of 4-8 per year, and five years without any permission. After the implementation of the permit system, fewer journalists are willing to report on conflicts, and experienced journalists and infrastructure have decreased.

The International Federation of Journalists criticized Korea as the only country to implement such a permit system for conflict zone reporting. Jeong Jin-young and his lawyer are now seeking constitutional review of the passport law's Section 17, questioning its constitutionality. The question is not just Jeong Jin-young's punishment, but the constitutional legitimacy of the government's authority to decide, ban, and grant permission for visa travel to conflict zones.