상영등급분류제도의 헌법적 검토

Abstract

A man who is an aesthetic being unfolds an endless world of imagination through free artistic expression. Such freedom of expression of art will be protected by two basic rights under the Constitution, with freedom of expression and freedom of art being exercised at the same time. However, it is true that so far, the Korean judiciary has taken a "pervasive" stance on art, which seeks to protect the moral values of the people rather than freedom of expression of art. Fortunately, the freedom of expression of art has become more innovative than in the past due to the Constitutional Court's efforts to actively reflect the superior value of freedom of expression, to drive a wedge into the censorship of the film, and to strictly interpret the obscene concepts subject to criminal punishment. Despite the three-time judgment on the censorship of the film, however, the controversy over the screening rating system still persists, especially over the unconstitutionality of the limited screen rating. Behind the controversy can be confirmed that the Constitutional Court's position on the absolute ban on censorship of films so far and the principle permission of the screening-rating system is inevitable. First of all, we need to break away from the principle of a rigid censorship ban. Although preliminary screening and regulation of content can admit that there are exceptions to sexual or commercial expressions, it depends on the principle of banning rigid censorship. When it comes to expressions that our society cannot accept, we need to block the distribution in advance. In particular, it is necessary to find a way to set a specific scope of obscene materials that should be banned in advance in accordance with the due process and to allow commercial advertising in comparison with other protective laws, such as health rights. Next, the position on the screening grade classification system should be reviewed. The Constitutional Court ruled against the rating retention system because it maintained its earlier position. And the revised limited screen rating has already been ruled unconstitutional once, but it has yet to escape the controversy over its constitutionality. If the concept of censorship includes 'suppression of expression', the screening grade classification system is censored, and the limited screening system is even more so. The way to ultimately be free from the controversy over the unconstitutionality is to go beyond the deliberation of the Korea Media Rating Board, the administrative agency, to complete self-examination. The principle of a cultural state or respect for human dignity that our Constitution is designing and doing is also based on "self-reliance." Already, the Constitutional Court has allowed self-determination related to life and death, which have been taboo in our society, and self-determination related to sex and marriage as constitutional rights. It is now thought that there is a need to break away from the paternalism by the government and lay the autonomous foundation that respects the freedom of expression of art and the right of self-determination of adults to the fullest extent.