명예훼손에 기한 피해구제의 법제와 현실 - 언론중재법상의 내용을 중심으로 -

Abstract

The “honor” protected by the right to honor, included in the general moral right derived from Article 10 of the Constitution, is interpreted as referring to the “social evaluation” of a person or his or her personality, that is, objective and external valuation. The legal system that protects the right to honor begins with the Constitution, which covers the freedom of speech and the press as fundamental rights in Article 21. At the same time, it explicitly stipulates the prohibition of infringing “the honor and rights of others” as a specific limit that cannot be overcome by press freedom. In addition, as a constitutional limitation of this freedom, “honor” can be viewed as a broader concept than the “protection of honor” under criminal law. Moreover, the scope of defamation punishable by defamation and infringement of the right to honor may be different. Next, there are related provisions of the Civil Act and the Criminal Act, which are generally corporations that specify the protection of personal honor. What was newly introduced here were the damage relief legislations in case of defamations caused by media reports, including the legislation of press arbitration procedure and the right to claim a report as a new right. Under the current law, systems for relieving media damage, including punishment regulations for cyber defamation, have become more diverse, with each system having different requirements and effects. Therefore, a person who was harmed by media reports can choose a remedy that considers each system’s requirements and effects. In terms of these conditions for institutional application, mediation and arbitration procedures of the Press Arbitration Commission can be quickly and easily remedied at a low cost. Moreover, various rights under the Press Arbitration Act have been established as new options for victims because these rights are incorporated into each requirement. Since its establishment by the Press Arbitration Commission in the Basic Media Act in 1981, the Press Arbitration Act underwent 3revisions following the Press Arbitration Law in 2005 and the enactment of the media damage relief system. It can be said that the Arbitration Act has continued to show improvement, centering on the Press Arbitration Commission’s role. Therefore, this article on defamation and damage relief mainly discusses the Press Arbitration Act, the basis for the activities of the Press Arbitration Commission that is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. The study’s purpose is to summarize the unconstitutional discussions about the damage regulations that were not judged in the case of the unconstitutional complaint against the various regulations under the Press Arbitration Act enacted in 2005. In this case, the Constitutional Court dismissed all provisions except for the provision on the right to request for correction of information and the provisional disposition, citing that they lacked the possibility of infringement of fundamental rights or the lack of directness. This decision was reached because the claim of unconstitutionality was not subject to judgment. Therefore, in this article, the current Press Arbitration Law (right to request correction information, right to report counterargument, right to request further reporting, right to claim suspension of infringement and prevention of infringement, and recommendation for correction, mediation, and arbitration) and the court’s interpretation of the provisions in the application process were examined through the relevant regulations and reality using the evaluation criteria, etc. We would like to summarize the 40th anniversary of the Press Arbitration Commission and suggest a starting point for a discussion about improvements for the future.