반론권과 언론의 자유 - 국가기관의 반론권 주체성을 중심으로 -

Abstract

The current Press Arbitration Act grants state institutions the right of reply, but there are constitutional concerns about the legitimacy of state institutions exercising this right. However, these concerns can be addressed by examining the nature of the right of reply. The right of reply serves as a tool to provide readers with opposing perspectives on controversial media coverage, enabling them to form a balanced understanding of the issue. It benefits those who have been harmed by media coverage by ensuring that readers are not trapped in bias and can maintain a balanced perspective. It is important to note that the right of reply is not a means of compensation for harm already inflicted. Therefore, the constitutional basis for the right of reply legislation is not Article 10, which is the basis for the general right of personality, but Article 21, paragraph 1, which guarantees freedom of speech. It is crucial to recognize that the right of reply is not a fundamental right. Freedom of speech is the right to freely express one’s opinion or not, rather than the right to force others to express their opinions. The right of reply is a legal right that is left to the discretion of lawmakers, from recognition of the right to the specific content of the right. With this understanding, state institutions can exercise the right of reply, as it is necessary to provide balanced information to readers by acknowledging the subjectivity of state institutions. However, as state institutions have various means to promote their own positions compared to ordinary citizens, it is crucial to avoid abusing the right of reply. Self-restraint is necessary to prevent any misuse of the right of reply.