<Abstract>

A Criticism on Punishing Consumers for Criminal Coercion for Noticing Boycott to Newspaper Advertisers

Some netizens requested a medicine company not to advertise on some newspapers which were reporting unjustly and wrongly about government’s importing mad-cow policies. The netizens warned a boycott when it continued advertising that way. The company did not stopped but accepted the alternative which the netizens offered to advertise on the other newspapers relatively fairly reporting on mad-cow issues. The courts of first instance and of appeals found the netizens guilty for the crime of ‘coercion’ and ‘blackmailing’ (Criminal Law §324 and §350).

The judgements are wrong for the following reasons. Firstly, there was no compulsion in that there was no infringement on any other’s freedom. Boycott means mear refusal of subscription which is left to the buyer’s discretion. Because a simple subscription does not give the other party any expectation of profits therefrom, the refusal of it does not infringe on her/his freedom of business. Secondly, the ‘last-resort principle’ should not have been applied to this case since it is a principle to regulate government’s restrictive actions on basic rights and not to restrain a citizen from carrying out such action. Thirdly, as far as such a demand on the advertisers had been found justifiable, the means of boycotting also should have been found relevant for that aim because it is an apparently effective method. The court of appeal thought that ‘the relevant method rule’ would require a ‘direct’ relation between means and ends. But there has been no similar case such this as requiring ‘directness’ as to exercising fundamental rights. Eventually, the consumer right including that of boycott which is a constitutionally protected right, and should not be interrupted by the crimes of coercion and blackmail at Criminal Law.

Key Phrases: consumers’ boycott, secondary boycott, criminal coercion, justifiable act, consumer right