본문 바로가기

추천 검색어

실시간 인기 검색어

학술논문

私生活의 自由와 言論의 自由의 衡量

이용수 47

영문명
Striking the balance between privacy and freedom of press: in the case of publication of photographs of public figure in public place
발행기관
한국민사법학회
저자명
金水晶( Kim, Soo-Jeong)
간행물 정보
『민사법학』제31호, 269~314쪽, 전체 46쪽
주제분류
사회과학 > 사회과학일반
파일형태
PDF
발행일자
2006.03.31
8,320

구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.

1:1 문의
논문 표지

국문 초록

영문 초록

In the year 2004, two important judgements about publication of photograph of public figure in public place came out. One of them was case of von Hannover v. Germany judged by European Court of Human Rights(ECHR), and the other was case of Campbell v. The MGN Ltd. by House of Lords of United Kingdom. In the former case, the ECHR decided that the criteria that Princess Caroline of Monaco as “absolute Person der Zeitgeschichte couldn t rely on protection of her private life unless she was in a secluded place out of the public eye were not sufficient to ensure the effective protection of the applicant s private life. And the majority opinion of ECHR stated that the decisive factor in balancing the protection of private life against freedom of expression should lie in the contribution of the published photos to a debate of general interest, however in that case the applicant was just a member of Prince Rainier s family and she didn t perform any function within the State of Monaco. In the latter case, the applicant who was a celebrated fashion model, Naomi Campbell, had made untrue pronouncements concerning her drug addiction and the respondent carried the article which revealed the fact of Miss Campbell s drug addiction, the details of the treatment and printed the photograph which showed her leaving a meeting with other addicts, so Miss Campbell claimed damages for breach of confidence. The House of Lords said that the values enshrined in Arts 8 and 10 of European Convention effected the cause of action for breach of confidence and in proceedings for damages for breach of confidence courts should balance the right to respect for private life against freedom of expression. Two of Lords stated that when main substance of the story was justified because of her previous falsehoods, it was leaved for journalists to decide whether or not it was necessary to include the details of the treatment and the photograph. But three of Lords focused upon the protection of her privacy and allowed the appeal of Miss Campbell. After analysing the two cases and other judgements of European Court and of the courts of United Kingdom related with the two cases, we can draw the conclusions like these. First, there is no bright line which can be drawn between what is private and what is not. And an activity may be private although it is done in public place, for privacy or private life not only means secrecy but also includes a person s development, without outside interference, of the personality of each individual in his relations with other human beings. From this point of view the requirement of “seclusion for protection of private life is too narrow and inflexible. Second, since photographs can be particularly intrusive, private life considerations may arise concerning the publication of photographs, even if the publication of written material of same matter is justified. Photographs of people contain more information than textual description, so they are more vivid than written words and once recorded in the form of permanent data like photographs or film, the relevant moment can be viewed to an extent which far exceeds any exposure to a passer-by. Third, on the one hand the majority opinion of ECHR stressed the contribution made by photos in the press to a debate of general interest, on the other hand German courts, House of Lords and the concurring opinion of ECHR emphasized that the public had a legitimate interest in being allowed to know the personal behaviour of the public figures who are often regarded as role models. The former criterion is too inflexible but approach of latter may leads to approval of morbid and sensational prying into private lives of public figures. It seems to me that one way of solving the problem is to have courts enga

목차

Ⅰ. 序論
Ⅱ. von Hannover 사건
Ⅲ. Campbell v. The MGN Ltd 사건
Ⅳ. 檢討 및 우리법에의 示唆
Ⅴ. 結論

키워드

해당간행물 수록 논문

참고문헌

교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!

신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.

바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!

교보e캐시 1,000원
TOP
인용하기
APA

金水晶( Kim, Soo-Jeong). (2006).私生活의 自由와 言論의 自由의 衡量. 민사법학, (31), 269-314

MLA

金水晶( Kim, Soo-Jeong). "私生活의 自由와 言論의 自由의 衡量." 민사법학, .31(2006): 269-314

결제완료
e캐시 원 결제 계속 하시겠습니까?
교보 e캐시 간편 결제