방송통신콘텐츠 심의에 관한 검토: 문제점 및 제언

Abstract

The Korea Communications Standards Commission, which was established to ensure the public nature and fairness of broadcast contents, reviews the fairness and objectivity of broadcast content after broadcasting, and also reviews and deletes or blocks Internet content. Since the members of the Commission are recommended by political parties, there is a high possibility of politically biased deliberation results. In addition, many parts of the Commission's deliberation standards are found to be unclear, which might violate the principle of clarity, and, therefore, supplementation is necessary in that it does not stipulate the expertise of members of the Commission but only grounds for disqualification. If there would be a difference between the reports presented to the Committee and the actual situations, fair deliberation might not proceed. In addition, discriminatory regulations are applied to broadcast content and Internet content, and no clear basis for review standards is provided. Above all, the deliberation body and deliberation procedure itself could actually function as prior censorship, and if the Commission is considered as an administrative agency, there is a possibility that it might be an infringement on freedom of expression by a state agency. In the review of broadcasting and communication content, it is believed that a consistent approach and deliberation to broadcast and Internet content is necessary, reflecting changes in the broadcast and internet content industry environment. There is a need to ensure political balance and fairness in the composition of the Commission and to supplement professionalism regulations. It is necessary to guarantee freedom of expression of content and provide motivation for self-regulation by applying self-regulatory standards or self-review standards from the creation and production stage of content. One of the most serious problems with the existence of the deliberation procedure and deliberation bodies is that the Commission might lose its political neutrality or the freedom of expression might be infringed due to the deliberation body. However, in the current domestic situation, the lack of review of content rather than the restriction of freedom of expression through content deliberation causes false and manipulated disinformation. Although the violation of the public's right to know due to the distribution of fake news is more serious, it is not easy to review such content, and in some cases, it is suspected that review is intentionally delayed, which appears to be a serious problem. Public opinion formed based on incorrect information results in the people making wrong choices that cause harm to themselves. Therefore, now if it is difficult for the Commission to restore its own functions, it seems necessary to create an environment in which the Commission can proceed with normal deliberation through citizens' active criticism of content and voluntary raising of issues.