복면시위의 금지·처벌과 그 한계
Freedom of Demonstration and Anti-Mask Law
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Recently many people participated in a candlelight rally to protest some policies of new government in Korea. The collision between police and demonstrators occasionally resulted in violence. Especially the mask-wearers were regarded as the toughest trouble-makers. This article analyzes important issues related to the insertion of anti-mask provisions which prohibit wearing masks at a rally with penalty into the Assembly and Demonstration Act. It is not a simple question when, if ever, the government can constitutionally ban public mask-wearing. The supporters insist that the anti-mask law intends to deter violence and enable law enforcement to apprehend wrongdoers. They say the wearing of a mask is presumed to increase a person's inclination to commit crimes because it lowers the likelihood of apprehension. In this context the concealing one's face while demonstrating is not constitutionally protected because an individual's right to free speech must be balanced against the state's right to regulate conduct in the interest of safety, and its right to regulate conduct that it legitimately considers potentially dangerous. According to them, the law is clearly intended to help police keep the peace, not restrict political protest. The opponents insist that the anti-mask law has alleged violations of free speech, free assembly, and substantive due process rights. They say mask-wearing can itself serve an expressive function, as well as enable speakers who need anonymity to express their beliefs publicly. They focus those who want to avoid the economic and social reprisals that may result if they were identified. They claim imminence of disorder is insufficient by itself as a justification for silencing speakers and the increased possibility of violence cannot alone justify a blanket ban on such demonstration. They warn the possibility of arbitrary exercise of state's police power in regulating demonstrations. Some suggest that the government may prohibit public mask-wearing when intended to concealing the wearer's identity while doing violent acts unless the wearer requires the resulting anonymity to exercise fundamental rights or to engage in specified activities where the need for privacy is apparent. Although the government has cited the need for a prophylactic crime-fighting device and its interest in enacting and enforcing the laws, the scope of tests designed to protect anonymous association and expressive conduct shall be the least restrictive means for achieving a compelling government interest.
Abstract
Recently many people participated in a candlelight rally to protest some policies of new government in Korea. The collision between police and demonstrators occasionally resulted in violence. Especially the mask-wearers were regarded as the toughest trouble-makers. This article analyzes important issues related to the insertion of anti-mask provisions which prohibit wearing masks at a rally with penalty into the Assembly and Demonstration Act. It is not a simple question when, if ever, the government can constitutionally ban public mask-wearing. The supporters insist that the anti-mask law intends to deter violence and enable law enforcement to apprehend wrongdoers. They say the wearing of a mask is presumed to increase a person's inclination to commit crimes because it lowers the likelihood of apprehension. In this context the concealing one's face while demonstrating is not constitutionally protected because an individual's right to free speech must be balanced against the state's right to regulate conduct in the interest of safety, and its right to regulate conduct that it legitimately considers potentially dangerous. According to them, the law is clearly intended to help police keep the peace, not restrict political protest. The opponents insist that the anti-mask law has alleged violations of free speech, free assembly, and substantive due process rights. They say mask-wearing can itself serve an expressive function, as well as enable speakers who need anonymity to express their beliefs publicly. They focus those who want to avoid the economic and social reprisals that may result if they were identified. They claim imminence of disorder is insufficient by itself as a justification for silencing speakers and the increased possibility of violence cannot alone justify a blanket ban on such demonstration. They warn the possibility of arbitrary exercise of state's police power in regulating demonstrations. Some suggest that the government may prohibit public mask-wearing when intended to concealing the wearer's identity while doing violent acts unless the wearer requires the resulting anonymity to exercise fundamental rights or to engage in specified activities where the need for privacy is apparent. Although the government has cited the need for a prophylactic crime-fighting device and its interest in enacting and enforcing the laws, the scope of tests designed to protect anonymous association and expressive conduct shall be the least restrictive means for achieving a compelling government interest.
참고문헌 (56)
- 허영, "한국헌법론, 전정4판", pp.560~ (2008), 박영사
- 권영설, "헌법이론과 헌법담론", pp.531~784 (2006), 법문사
- 김철수, "헌법학개론, 제19전정신판", pp.831~907 (2007), 박영사
- "헌재 1992.2.25. 89헌가104", ~
- Meiklejohn, "Freedom of Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government," (1948)
- Emerson, "The System of Freedom of Expression" (1970)
- "헌재 1992.1.28. 89헌가8", ~
- "헌재 2005.11.24. 2004헌가17", ~
- "헌재 1992.1.28. 89헌가8", ~
- 조병인, "집회 및 시위의 보장과 규제에 관한 연구", pp.41~69 (2002), 한국형사정책연구원
- 김승환, "집회와 시위의 자유의 헌법적 의미, In 집시법개개정안 마련을 위한 공청회 자료집", pp.56~59 (2001)
- "서울행법 2007.5.22. 2007구합12286", ~
- "헌재 1994.4.28. 91헌바14", ~
- 이성용, "촛불집회에 대한 법적 고찰- 광우병 촛불집회를 중심으로 -", 경찰법연구, 6(1), pp.30~54 (2008), 한국경찰법학회
- "집회및시위에관한법률 전부개정법률안", ~ (2008)
- 이성용, "집시법상의 복면시위 금지", 한국경찰연구, 7(2), pp.93~120 (2008), 한국경찰연구학회
- 한국법철학회, "법치국가와 시민불복종" (2001), 법문사
- 오현철, "시민불복종: 저항과 자유의 길" (2001), 책세상
- 한상수, "시민불복종" (1998), 세종출판사
- "네이버 사전", ~
- "SBS의 ｢체인지｣", ~
- "영화 ｢미녀는 괴로워｣", ~
- Ridder, "Versammlungsrecht Kommentar, 1.Aufl" (1992), Nomos
- Simoni, "Who Goes There? Proposing a Model Anti-Mask Act", Fordham Law Review, 241, pp.241~266 (1992)
- Köhler, "Demonstrations- und Versammlungsrecht, 4.Aufl", pp.78~ (2001)
- Zimbardo, "루시퍼 이펙트", pp.458~ (2007), 웅진 지식하우스
- 김동섭, "만물상", 조선일보, ~ (2008)
- 배종대, "시위형법의 형사정책: 선진 각국의 시위관련법을 중심으로", 고려법학, (37), pp.10~80 (2001)
- 유윤종, "집시법 운용상의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 연구", 석사, pp.2003
- 조덕선, "집시법의 문제점과 개선방안에 관한 연구", 석사, pp.2005
- 문성도, "집회․시위에 대한 촬영의 법리", 경찰법연구, 3(1), pp.59~60 (2005)
- 석상옥, "정보채증과 초상권 침해, In 교관논문집, 제16집", pp.103~104 (2001), 경찰종합학교
- 서보학, "참여연대 토론회", 내일신문, ~ (2008)
- "경찰연감", 258~ (1990)
- Jahn, "Verfassungsrechtliche Probleme eines strafbewerten Vermmumungsverbots", JZ, 546~548
- Amelung, "Stellungnahme zum Artikelgesetz", StV, 72~ (1989)
- 이진국, "형사입법자의 형벌법규 제정권한에 관한 연구", pp.161~ (2003), 한국형사정책연구원
- "헌재 1995.4.20. 91헌바11", ~
- "헌재 1997.8.21. 93헌바60", ~
- 최갑선, "자유권적 기본권이 침해여부 판단구조 및 판단기준", 헌법논총, 10, pp.405~ (1999)
- 정태호, "자유권적 기본권의 제한에 관한 고찰: 이른바 사실상의 기본권 제약", 헌법논총, 13, pp.565~569 (2002)
- 이진국, "형사입법자의 형벌법규 제정권한에 관한 연구", pp.80~89
- "헌재 1990.9.3. 89헌가95", ~
- Rey, "Antimask Laws: Exploring the Outer Bounds of Protected Speech Under the First Amendment--State v. Miller 260 GA. 669, 398 S.E.2D 547 (1990)", Washington Law Review, 66(1139) (1991)
- Allen, "Klan, Cloth and Constitution: Anti-mask Laws and the First Amendment", Georgia Law Review, 25(819), pp.860~ (1991)
- "헌재 1995.5.25. 93헌바23", ~
- "헌재 1996.12.26. 93헌바65", ~
- "헌재 2002.1.31. 2000헌가8", ~
- "헌재 2000.2.24. 헌가4", ~
- "대판 1999.10.12. 99도2309", ~
- 준법의식의 실태 및 준법운동의 전개방향에 관한 연구, "연성진", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2000)
- 최석윤, "상징형법에 대한 비판적 고찰", 비교형사법연구, 5(2-1), pp.6~164 (2003), 한국비교형사법학회
- 김성태, "집회․시위 현장에서의 촬영에 대한 행정법적 근거와 한계, In 집회․시위 자유의법적 문제와 합리적 대안", 한국경찰법학회, 2008, pp.143~
- 김재봉, "불법 집회․시위현장에서 사진․비디오 촬영의 형사소송법적 근거와 한계, In 집회․시위 자유의 법적 문제와 합리적 대안", 167~