アシアナの間抜けな訴訟での脅し。
Asiana Airlines’ idiotic lawsuit threat
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/07/15/asiana-airlines-idiotic-lawsuit-threat/
As most Interneters now know, KTVU-TV, a San Francisco television station, committed a massive mistake in the aftermath of the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214. It rushed onto the air an exclusive report disclosing the names of the pilots on that flight, which crashed at San Francisco International Airport on July 6. Here’s a transcript of this exclusive:
We have new information also on the plane crash. KTVU has just learned the names of the four pilots who were on board the flight. They are captain Sum Ting Wong, Wi Tu Lo, [redacted] and Bang Ding Ow. The NTSB has confirmed these are the names of the pilots on board flight 214 when it crashed. We are working to determine exactly what roles each of them played during the landing on Saturday.
Anyone who had taken the step of sounding out those names would have realized that they were a racially insensitive joke. Yet KTVU said that it had secured confirmation from an official of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). That official turned out to have been an intern. The station issued fulsome expressions of regret over the incident.
Those mea culpa didn’t appease Asiana Airlines, which is looking to make a case out of the matter. From the Associated Press: “Asiana has decided to sue KTVU-TV to ‘strongly respond to its racially discriminatory report’ that disparaged Asians, Asiana spokeswoman Lee Hyomin said. She said the airline will likely file suit in U.S. courts.”
The Erik Wemple Blog has reached out to Asiana Airlines for confirmation of that point. No response thus far.
CNN is reporting this statement from the airline:
“After a legal review, the company decided to file a lawsuit against the network because it was their report that resulted in damaging the company’s image,” said a company spokesperson.
There’s little question that the KTVU report disparaged Asians and conveyed false information. That’s unfortunate. It doesn’t, however, give Asiana Airlines a cause of action against KTVU.
To win a judgment against the television station, the airline must prove that the false report so injured its reputation that it resulted in the loss of business. That, it will never be able to do.
If Asiana Airlines suffers a loss of business these days, what will have been the cause? We’ll throw out two options:
1) A crash after an Asiana aircraft approached San Francisco International Airport too slowly, leaving three people dead.
2) A roughly 30-second report on a local TV station using fake pilot names for the flight.
Tough call there.
Consider, too, that the KTVU report in question made no allegations about how the airline operated; it merely read off four names — wrong names, to be sure, but names! What’s defamatory about names?
The racial insensitivity in the broadcast, too, is fully protected under U.S. law, notes attorney Jeffrey Pyle, a partner in the Boston-based firm Prince Lobel Tye LLP. “There’s no legal claim that you have against somebody for being unintentionally racist or intentionally racist,” says Pyle.
Another legal dynamic gives this “case” the look of a complete joke: Asiana Airlines is a sizable company with a significant public profile, meaning that for the purposes of a defamation case, it would be treated as a public figure, according to Clay Calvert, a University of Florida professor. Under U.S. law, public figures have a higher burden of proof than do private folks in pursuing their cases against news outlets. Asiana would have to show that KTVU acted with “actual malice” in delivering its report on pilot names. In light of KTVU’s apologies, such malice will be a tough case to make.
If Asiana wants the public to continue pondering the San Francisco crash, it’ll hotly pursue this litigation. It’ll surely kick-start a wonderful public debate: Is the airline worst at PR, law or aviation?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
７月15日付のWashington Postです。
始めはTV局が間違ったパイロット名を放映し、
アシアナが「企業イメージを傷つけられた」と
TV局を訴訟する発表を行うまでの過程説明です。
この後の文章を意訳しますと、
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TV局が間違ったパイロット名を放映してしまったのは確かに問題だが、
アシアナが名誉毀損でTV局に勝訴する為には、
TV局の誤報がアシアナのビジネスに悪影響を与えた事を、証明する必要がある。
アシアナのビジネスに悪影響を与えた要因は二つ。
どちらがより悪影響を与えたか？
１）サンフランシスコ空港着陸失敗でのし亡事故。
２）ローカルTV局での約30秒間流れた誤報。
結果は明らかだ。
それに、TV局はアシアナの運営について、何も発言をしていない。
4人の名前、それは間違った名前だが、名前を放映しただけだ。
名前間違いでの、名誉毀損の可能性とは？
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ここからは、真面目に訳します＾＾
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
放送での人種差別発言も、アメリカの憲法の下で完全に保護されている。
と、ボストンにあるPrince Lobel法律事務所の弁護士Jeffrey Pyleは指摘する。
「無意識な人種差別行為であろうと、意図的な人種差別行為であろうと、
それだけで法的に取り締まる事はできません。」
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
実は昨日この弁護士の発言を読んだ時、自分の訳に自信が持てませんでした。
「人種差別発言をしても、アメリカで罪に問われない？？」
そこで今日、昼食時にアメリカ人の友人に確認してみました。
「freedom of speech（言論の自由）だよ。」…なるほど＾＾；
以後はまた意訳です。
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
また、フロリダ大学教授Clay Calvertは「この訴訟はジョークにしか見えない。
企業が名誉毀損で訴訟する場合、民間人の訴訟と異なり、より確かな証拠を必要とされる。
アシアナは、TV局が間違ったパイロット名を故意に悪意を持って放映した事を
証明しなければならない。TV局は直ぐに謝罪しているし、証明は難しいだろう。」と言っている。
もし、アシアナがサンフランシスコ着陸失敗事故を国民に議論し続けて欲しいのなら、
この訴訟は非常に意味がある。
そして、その議論はアシアナの最大の問題が広報なのか法務なのか、
それとも飛行なのかで盛り上がるだろう。
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
この記事後、アシアナはTV局への訴訟取り止めを発表しました。
それにしても、なんでTV局相手に訴訟なんて…。
韓国内だけの感情的判断だったように思えます。
wander_civic
아시아나의 얼간이인 소송으로의 위협해.
Asiana Airlines’ idiotic lawsuit threat
As most Interneters now know, KTVU-TV, a San Francisco television station, committed a massive mistake in the aftermath of the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214. It rushed onto the air an exclusive report disclosing the names of the pilots on that flight, which crashed at San Francisco International Airport on July 6. Here’s a transcript of this exclusive:
We have new information also on the plane crash. KTVU has just learned the names of the four pilots who were on board the flight. They are captain Sum Ting Wong, Wi Tu Lo, [redacted] and Bang Ding Ow. The NTSB has confirmed these are the names of the pilots on board flight 214 when it crashed. We are working to determine exactly what roles each of them played during the landing on Saturday.
Anyone who had taken the step of sounding out those names would have realized that they were a racially insensitive joke. Yet KTVU said that it had secured confirmation from an official of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). That official turned out to have been an intern. The station issued fulsome expressions of regret over the incident.
Those mea culpa didn’t appease Asiana Airlines, which is looking to make a case out of the matter. From the Associated Press: “Asiana has decided to sue KTVU-TV to ‘strongly respond to its racially discriminatory report’ that disparaged Asians, Asiana spokeswoman Lee Hyomin said. She said the airline will likely file suit in U.S. courts.”
The Erik Wemple Blog has reached out to Asiana Airlines for confirmation of that point. No response thus far.
CNN is reporting this statement from the airline:
“After a legal review, the company decided to file a lawsuit against the network because it was their report that resulted in damaging the company’s image,” said a company spokesperson.
There’s little question that the KTVU report disparaged Asians and conveyed false information. That’s unfortunate. It doesn’t, however, give Asiana Airlines a cause of action against KTVU.
To win a judgment against the television station, the airline must prove that the false report so injured its reputation that it resulted in the loss of business. That, it will never be able to do.
If Asiana Airlines suffers a loss of business these days, what will have been the cause? We’ll throw out two options:
1) A crash after an Asiana aircraft approached San Francisco International Airport too slowly, leaving three people dead.
2) A roughly 30-second report on a local TV station using fake pilot names for the flight.
Tough call there.
Consider, too, that the KTVU report in question made no allegations about how the airline operated; it merely read off four names — wrong names, to be sure, but names! What’s defamatory about names?
The racial insensitivity in the broadcast, too, is fully protected under U.S. law, notes attorney Jeffrey Pyle, a partner in the Boston-based firm Prince Lobel Tye LLP. “There’s no legal claim that you have against somebody for being unintentionally racist or intentionally racist,” says Pyle.
Another legal dynamic gives this “case” the look of a complete joke: Asiana Airlines is a sizable company with a significant public profile, meaning that for the purposes of a defamation case, it would be treated as a public figure, according to Clay Calvert, a University of Florida professor. Under U.S. law, public figures have a higher burden of proof than do private folks in pursuing their cases against news outlets. Asiana would have to show that KTVU acted with “actual malice” in delivering its report on pilot names. In light of KTVU’s apologies, such malice will be a tough case to make.
If Asiana wants the public to continue pondering the San Francisco crash, it’ll hotly pursue this litigation. It’ll surely kick-start a wonderful public debate: Is the airline worst at PR, law or aviation?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
7월 15 일자의 Washington Post입니다.
초는 TV국이 잘못된 파일럿명을 방영해,
아시아나가 「기업 이미지를 손상시킬 수 있었다」라고
TV국을 소송하는 발표를 실시할 때까지의 과정 설명입니다.
이 후의 문장을 의역하면,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TV국이 잘못된 파일럿명을 방영해 버린 것은 확실히 문제이지만,
아시아나가 명예 훼손으로 TV국에 승소하기 위해는,
TV국의 오보가 아시아나의 비지니스에 악영향을 준 일을, 증명할 필요가 있다.
아시아나의 비지니스에 악영향을 준 요인은 두 개.
어느 쪽이 보다 악영향을 주었는지？
1) 샌프란시스코 공항 착륙 실패로의 해 망사고.
2) 로컬 TV국에서의 약 30초간 흐른 오보.
결과는 분명하다.
게다가, TV국은 아시아나의 운영에 대해서, 아무것도 발언을 하고 있지 않다.
4명의 이름, 그것은 잘못된 이름이지만, 이름을 방영했을 뿐이다.
이름 실수로의, 명예 훼손의 가능성이란？
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
여기에서는, 성실하게 번역합니다＾＾
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
방송으로의 인종차별 발언도, 미국의 헌법아래에서 완전하게 보호되고 있다.
라고 보스턴에 있는 Prince Lobel 법률 사무소의 변호사 Jeffrey Pyle는 지적한다.
「무의식적인 인종차별 행위여도, 의도적인 인종차별 행위여도,
그 만큼으로 법적으로 단속하는 일은 할 수 없습니다.」
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
실은 어제 이 변호사의 발언을 읽었을 때, 자신의 (뜻)이유에 자신을 가질 수 없었습니다.
「인종차별 발언을 해도, 미국에서 죄에 추궁 당하지 않는다？？」
거기서 오늘, 점심 식사시에 미국인의 친구에게 확인해 보았습니다.
「freedom of speech(언론의 자유)야.」…과연＾＾；
이후는 또 의역입니다.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
또, 플로리다 대학교수 Clay Calvert는 「이 소송은 농담 밖에 안보인다.
기업이 명예 훼손으로 소송하는 경우, 민간인의 소송과 달리, 보다 확실한 증거가 필요하게 된다.
아시아나는, TV국이 잘못된 파일럿명을 고의로 악의를 가져 방영한 일을
증명해야 한다.TV국은 곧바로 사죄하고 있고, 증명은 어려울 것이다.」라고 한다.
만약, 아시아나가 샌프란시스코 착륙 실패 사고를 국민에게 계속 논의했으면 좋다면,
이 소송은 매우 의미가 있다.
그리고, 그 논의는 아시아나의 최대의 문제가 홍보인가 법무인가,
그렇지 않으면 비행인가로 분위기가 살 것이다.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
이 기사 후, 아시아나는 TV국에의 소송 정지를 발표했습니다.
그렇다 치더라도, 어째서 TV국 상대에게 소송은….
한국내만의 감정적 판단이었던 것 같게 생각됩니다.
wander_civic