명예훼손과 표현의 자유

Abstract

Modern society is based on the understanding that human desires are basic elements of social progress. So it encourages individuals to develop their motives to the interests of their own and the society. While individual behaviors must be regulated when they break social order, the way in which government meddles with individual behavior must also be strictly controlled by the law. Governments are supposed to specify for what purposes they are trying to meddle with what individual citizens say or do whenever they are trying to do so. Freedom of expression is one of the cardinal values in this modern political understanding. And the risk of defamation is regarded as a price to pay for protecting freedom of expression of the general public. Therefore, defamation cases are adjudicated in civil courts in the common law countries. If defamation charges are subject to criminal punishment, citizens in general are led to refrain from publishing their opinions because of what is called the chilling effects. In addition, investigation authorities are likely to arbitrarily interpret and apply provisions of the law to the effect that they act as agents not of the community as a whole but only of those with greater social power. This paper, taking a close look at a few defamation cases in the U. S. courts including Dongguk University v. Yale University, argues that the interests in protecting citizens against defamation can be sufficiently promoted in civil courts. It also argues that citizens' honor worthy of protection can be better protected when dealt in civil courts because more rigorous and more coherent legal wisdom may as well grow through the adversarial form of trial.