사적 검열에 관한 헌법학적 연구

초록

The Korean government has presented a bill revising 「Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc.」(hereinafter ‘the Bill’) to the Korean National Assembly on Nov. 28, 2008. The Bill contains a provision which imposes a duty to monitor contents hosted by Internet Content Host on the Internet Content Host such as Portal site. The purpose of this study is to analyze the constitutional justification and conditions of private censorship. Furthermore, this study aims to examine the relationship between private censorship and self-regulation. At last, this study analyzes the constitutional problems of the duty of monitoring provision on the Bill. About the constitutional justification and conditions of private censorship, this study suggests the constitutional justification and conditions of private censorship as follows. First, In order that private censorship should be justified in a viewpoint of constitutional law, the state or government should not try to affect or influence the private censorship(Integrity Thesis). Second, In order that private censorship should be justified in a viewpoint of constitutional law, there should be a consensus or contract about the private censorship based on voluntary approval of the concerned parties(Spontaneity Thesis). Third, In order that private censorship should be justified in a viewpoint of constitutional law, the content of the consensus or contract between the concerned parties, in other words, the standards of the expression to be censored and the sanction to be applied to the speaker or contents provider should be reasonable(Rationality Thesis). The above constitutional justification and conditions of private censorship can be applied to self-regulation also. In other words, the above constitutional justification and conditions of private censorship can be applied as a constitutional justification and conditions of self-regulation. According to the above results of analyses, this study concludes that the duty of monitoring provision on the Bill is unconstitutional. The duty of monitoring provision on the Bill cannot be justified constitutionally, because the provision cannot meet the conditions of private censorship and is itself a kind of government censorship due to the nature of legislative enforcement. In other words, the duty of monitoring provision on the Bill is against the Integrity Thesis and Spontaneity Thesis among the constitutional justification and conditions of private censorship. The Korean government has presented a bill revising 「Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc.」(hereinafter ‘the Bill’) to the Korean National Assembly on Nov. 28, 2008. The Bill contains a provision which imposes a duty to monitor contents hosted by Internet Content Host on the Internet Content Host such as Portal site. The purpose of this study is to analyze the constitutional justification and conditions of private censorship. Furthermore, this study aims to examine the relationship between private censorship and self-regulation. At last, this study analyzes the constitutional problems of the duty of monitoring provision on the Bill. About the constitutional justification and conditions of private censorship, this study suggests the constitutional justification and conditions of private censorship as follows. First, In order that private censorship should be justified in a viewpoint of constitutional law, the state or government should not try to affect or influence the private censorship(Integrity Thesis). Second, In order that private censorship should be justified in a viewpoint of constitutional law, there should be a consensus or contract about the private censorship based on voluntary approval of the concerned parties(Spontaneity Thesis). Third, In order that private censorship should be justified in a viewpoint of constitutional law, the content of the consensus or contract between the concerned parties, in other words, the standards of the expression to be censored and the sanction to be applied to the speaker or contents provider should be reasonable(Rationality Thesis). The above constitutional justification and conditions of private censorship can be applied to self-regulation also. In other words, the above constitutional justification and conditions of private censorship can be applied as a constitutional justification and conditions of self-regulation. According to the above results of analyses, this study concludes that the duty of monitoring provision on the Bill is unconstitutional. The duty of monitoring provision on the Bill cannot be justified constitutionally, because the provision cannot meet the conditions of private censorship and is itself a kind of government censorship due to the nature of legislative enforcement. In other words, the duty of monitoring provision on the Bill is against the Integrity Thesis and Spontaneity Thesis among the constitutional justification and conditions of private censorship.

키워드