반론권제도와 그 개선방안

• 영문명: Legislative Reform of The Right of Reply
• 발행기관: 한국헌법학회
• 저자명: 유일상(Ryu Il-Sang)
• 간행물 정보: 『헌법학연구』憲法學硏究 第9卷 第4號, 271~314쪽, 전체 44쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2003.12.01

영문 초록

This paper is to suggest the policy guidelines how to settle down the right of reply efficiently. The guidelines for the right of reply should be based on the analysis and interpretation of the Korean constitution and relevant Acts. The right of reply harmonizes the press freedom and privacy protection at the point that individuals express more speech through the related mass media. In Korea, the right of reply was adopted by the name of claim for rectification reporting under the Basic Press Act in the 5th Republic. After the abrogation of the Act in 1987, the clause was succeeded to the Registration of Periodicals Act and the Broadcasting Act. Now, the newly introduced rectification reporting system should take the arbitration process since 1995, while the old system should request compulsory arbitration for the report of reply. Press Arbitration Commission that is evaluated as some ambiguous institution internationally takes the central role for this process. It may look like that the journalism is not regulated by court but by the semi-governmental organization that is sponsored by Broadcasting Development Fund raised by Korean Broadcasting Commission. However, the commission regulates actually the freedom of the press and the speech indirectly by the members appointed by the Minister of Culture and Sightseeing. According to the democratic participant normative theory, it is believed that free press and the equal opportunity will guarantee personal happiness when mass media promote to exchange one's roles between communicator and communicatee frequently. The conclusions of this paper IS induced according to the normative logical analysis. First, press and the broadcasting media should be allowed to exercise the right of reply separately. Second, the present right of reply that can restrain the freedom of journalism should be considered again whether it is constitutional. Third, the present Press Arbitration Commission should be reformed not to restrict citizen's right to know and should allow the self regulation of journalist to guarantee the free flow. Forth, in order to minimize suffering injury from published news story the period of prescription should be extended period for the excercise right of reply and rectification, but shortened for the publishing reply and rectification of original news story.

목차

1. 머리말

2. 반론권의 현대적 내용

3. 우리나라의 반론권 제도와 보도피해의 구제실태

4. 결언

참고문헌

Abstract