신공화주의 논의를 통해 재상상하는 표현의 자유 - 비지배자유와 균형된 미디어 개념을 중심으로 -

손영준 ( Son Young Jun ),허만섭 ( Heo Man Sup ) 언론중재위원회 2021 미디어와 인격권 Vol.7 No.3

이 연구는 신공화주의 논의를 바탕으로 저널리즘의 기초인 표현의 자유를 철학적으로 재상상한다. 자유주의는 표현의 범위를 스스로 정하는 자유로 표현의 자유를 규정하지만, 신공화주의는 사람이 무언의 압박을 받아 스스로 표현을 억제하는 점을 지적한다. 결국, 언론인은 권력자의 임의적, 자의적 간섭에서 완전히 벗어나는 비지배자유 상태에서 표현의 자유를 갖는다. 비지배는 언론사 설립ㆍ경영ㆍ취재ㆍ보도의 독립성을 법으로 보장받는 언론기관의 외적 자유를 끌어낸다. 나아가, 언론인이 사내의 임의적 통제에 대해서도 대항할 수 있을 때 언론기관의 내적 자유는 완성된다. 국가에 대한 시민적 통제인 견제적 민주주의는 균형된 미디어, 독립적 공영방송, 파수견 기관들, 그리고 건강한 공론장으로 구현된다. 특히, 균형된 미디어는 이상적 언론상(像)이자, 표현의 자유를 위한 필수적 장치로 제시된다. 언론사가 편향적일 때 소속 언론인은 자기검열에 나서거나 가시적 간섭을 받음으로써 제한된 표현의 자유만 행사하고 다양한 정보의 제공에 실패한다. 이렇게, 신공화주의 개념들은 표현의 자유를 실질적으로 보장하는 이론적 토대를 제공한다. 표현의 자유는 언론인의 변화를 촉구하는 문화적 실천적 성격을 갖게 된다. The present study philosophically reimagines freedom of speech, the fundamentals of journalism, based on the discussions of Pettit’s (1998, 2000, 2002, 2008, 2012, 2014, 2019) neo-republicanism. Neorepublicanism attempts to transcend the limits of liberalism and communitarianism by grafting the opposing values of freedom and common good to the concept of non-domination. In particular, it is recognized as one of the mainstream political philosophies by providing practical methodologies that guarantee the sovereignty and freedom of citizens in the fields of elections, government, parliament, judiciary, and the media. This study discussed neo-republicanism related to the media from journalism’s perspectives. According to the results, liberalism defines freedom of speech as the freedom to determine the scope of expression for oneself. However, neo-republicanism points out that people used to suppress their expression due to invisible pressure from the powerful. In this case, they decide the scope of expression themselves, but they do not enjoy true freedom. In neo-republicanism, this situation of suppressing speech to avoid conflict with the powerful is defined as a state in which the desire of the powerful controls the speaker’s freedom of expression without visible interference. Nondomination does not tolerate even the possibility that the speaker may be interfered with by someone else’s will one day. The concept of non-domination provides a theoretical foundation for protecting freedom of speech more practically than liberal philosophy. In addition, compared to republicanism, which prioritizes the common good over personal freedom, neo-republicanism advocates freedom of speech much more but sets nondomination, including freedom of speech, as an ultimate goal of the community harmonizing freedom of speech and the common good. After all, journalists have freedom of speech in a state of nondomination that is entirely free from arbitrary interference by those in power. Nondomination entails the external freedoms of the press, whose laws guarantee the independence of the media in its establishment, management, and news reporting. When journalists oppose arbitrary interference in their offices while compiling news, the inner freedom of the press is sufficiently obtained. A civic control over the state, called contestatory democracy, is embodied by balanced media, independent public broadcasting, watchdog bodies, and a healthy public sphere. When a medium is biased, hired journalists only have limited freedom of speech and are likely to fail to provide various information to their audiences. According to the review, neo-republicanism requires journalists to build a balanced media to achieve complete freedom of speech. In particular, balanced media is the image of the ideal media that all journalists must pursue and is presented as an essential device for practicing freedom of speech and the press. Similar to the logic claimed by this theoretical framework, South Korean journalists take into account their politically or economically biased superior’s potential interference and refrain from producing news that does not fit the superior’s taste through their self-censorship. This tendency reduces freedom of speech and diversity in the public sphere. The media’s bias reduces journalists’ freedom, which leads to a vicious cycle that further reinforces the media’s bias in South Korea. As the number of biased media increases, the social credibility of the media declines, the nondomination of civil society weakens due to the distortion of the public sphere, and the crisis of journalism deepens. In this discussion, the issue of freedom of speech has a cultural and practical character that calls for changes in the news production practices of the South Korean media. Few studies have dealt with the relationship between media bias and decreased freedom of speech. Still, in this study, it is clarified in detail through the mediation of neo-republicanism concepts.

50, 60년대 신문의 언론 자유 논증에 대한 담화 연구

김현강(Kim, Hyun-gang) 담화·인지언어학회 2018 담화와 인지 Vol.25 No.4

This study analyzed the meaning and argumentation of the freedom of speech appearing in the editorials and columns of the Kyeonghyang Newspaper and the Dong-A Daily Newspaper from 1948 to 1962. In the South Korean society, the discussions on this era, in which the democratic republic was commenced, conceptualized the meaning of the freedom of speech, and had a large effect on today’s perception on the freedom of speech. This paper analyzed the discussions by using practical argumentation, which is one of methods used recently for critical discourse studies. At the time, the freedom of speech was not sufficiently guaranteed, and the system and laws that can guarantee it were not in place yet. The discourses of the freedom of speech showed complex aspects whereby amidst argumentations claiming the guarantee of the freedom of speech, arguments for restricting it were intersecting. Furthermore, other arguments such as fairness of journalism, journalist ethics, or national security were met. Through this analysis, we can understand how today’s perception on the freedom of speech was formed. For a long time, the freedom of speech was perceived narrowly in the media’s freedom and norms. The disappearance of arguments since 1960s left large tracks by taking opportunities away from the society for discussion and reasoning on the freedom of speech, rather than the freedom of speech itself. Hence, the freedom of speech will not be recovered in the state of disappeared oppression only. A greater freedom of everyone will be completely obtained through debates on the arguments that restricted the freedom, and more fierce reasoning for the fairness.

1974~75년 동아일보,동아방송 구성원들의 자유언론투쟁

김행섭 ( Haeng Seob Kim ) 수선사학회 2015 史林 Vol.0 No.53

It is on October 24, 1974 that the Dong-a Ilbo reporters made the Declaration for the Practice of Freedom of Speech and took into a full-scale movement for the practice of freedom of speech with the tyranny, oppressive ruling, and suppression on the press by the Park Jung-hee``s regime for over ten years in the background. The press was not performing its intended roles right under the suppression of his regime, which controlled the press so that they would not print a negative article about his regime. The agents of the Central Information Bureau would visit the editorial offices of the newspapers to intervene their articles and often take journalists to the police, shrinking the press. The general readers and the public criticized the press for not reporting accurate facts in demonstrations, thus driving the incumbent reporters into a mental shock. In response to those developments, the young reporters of Dong-a Ilbo, the most influential newspaper of the times in Korea, made a declaration to protect freedom of speech in April, 1971 and November and December, 1973. Despite their three declarations, however, the newspaper articles were not improved over a night. Furthermore, their three declarations were not translated into actions right, either. There was no reporters`` organization to support their practice, and Park``s regime and the Central Information Bureau still enjoyed enormous power. In March, 1974, the Dong-a Ilbo reporters formed a labor union as a means of engaging in a movement for freedom of speech in an organized manner. Although they failed in obtaining a legal status for their union due to the suppression from the newspaper and Park``s regime, the reporters developed confidence, succeeded in reforming the executive office of the Reporters`` Association and the executive office of the Reporters`` Association Dong-a branch, and made a declaration for the practice of freedom of speech and acted upon it on October 24, 1974. Working with the executive editors including the head of the editorial office, the reporters started to print articles on the difficulties the common people had and democratic movements little by little. Those articles were not found in the newspaper for a long while before their change. During the period, some members of the management and executives were favorable toward the practice of freedom of speech even though they were passive. In addition, the producers of Dong-a Broadcasting, a subsidiary of Dong-a Ilbo, joined in their practice of and struggle for freedom of speech by including criticism on Park``s regime in their programs. In reaction to their efforts, Park``s regime pressed the advertisers of Dong-a Ilbo and Dong-a Broadcasting to stop buying ads from them through the Central Information Bureau and tried to stop the practice of and struggle for freedom of speech happening at Dong-a Ilbo. As a result, most of the ads in the newspaper were canceled in late December, 1974. In January, 1975, however, there was an explosion in advertisements to encourage them and in movements to raise funds and subscribe to the newspaper among the general readers and the public. The ad sections of the newspaper were full of encouragement ads by the general reader. Encouraged by them, the reporters and employees tried to continue their practice of and struggle for freedom of speech. However, the president and the management withdrawn by the prolonged suppression on their ads fired many of the reporters and employees involved in the struggle for freedom of speech and forcefully broke up their protests in March, 1975 to make a reconciliation with Park``s regime and bring back the ads. The dismissed reporters and employees formed Dong-a Committee for Protection and Struggle for Freedom of Speech, which joined the democratization movement in the latter half of the 1970s and made a huge contribution to the nation``s democratization.

언론 · 출판의 자유와 명예보호 사이의 한계 - 영연방국가와의 비교를 중심으로

윤기택(Yun Gitaek) 한국재산법학회 2007 재산법연구 Vol.24 No.2

  The first half of this Study has dealt with the relationship between the common law of Defamation and Freedom of Speech in English Commonwealth Countries. Over the last decade, the relationship between the common law of Defamation and freedom of speech has preoccupied common courts around world; recently House of Lords in Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Limited and others and the New Zealand Courts of Appeal in Lange v Atkinson. Perhaps the most important development in the law of defamation in the last few years has occurred in the expansion of the common law qualified privilege defence. The basis of the privilege is the common convenience and welfare of society.<BR>  In the United State, the issue was dealt with long ago in the Supreme Court"s landmark decision in New York Times v Sullivan. In New York Times, the United States Supreme Court held that the first Amendment"s protection of freedom of speech required a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with "actual malice" or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The New York Times rule has been the most reference point in the deliberation in other countries of the relationship between the common law of Defamation and freedom of speech. The New York Times rule then came before the House of Lords in 1998 in Reynolds, when a defamation action was brought by a former Irish Prime Minister against the Sunday Times newspaper. Despite the sensitivity to free speech concerns evident in cases such as Derbyshire, English courts previously had not adopted a public figure defence in the common law of libel. Although it was not argued that the House of Lords, should adopt a New York Times-like defence, it was put that the common law should recognise a new "qualified privilege" that would protect political discussion. Under the suggested new rule, the common law solution is for the court to have regard to all the circumstances when deciding whether the publication of particular material was privileged because of its value to the public. Its value to the public depends upon its quality as well as its subject-matter.<BR>  On the other hand, the Australian High Court and the New Zealand Court of Appeal have extended common law qualified privilege to matters of political discussion. There the occasion is privileged in the Australian situation. provided that the conduct of the defendant was reasonable in making the publication, that is that the defendant had reasonable grounds for believing the imputation true, took proper steps to verify the accuracy of the information, and did not believe the imputation untrue. The New Zealand Court of Appeal rejected a reasonableness requirement of the Australian High Court; the defendant in matters of political discussion could rely on the defence, provided there was no ill will and it did not take improper advantage of the occasion.<BR>  In the second half of this paper, the comparative study on Defamation and Freedom of Speech in Common law and those in Korea has been tried. Prior to the 2000s the Korean Supreme Court had put more weight on protection of reputation than on protection of freedom of speech. In the 2000s the Korean Supreme Court seems to change its attitude and prefer freedom of speech to defamation. In case of conflict between protection of freedom of speech and protection of reputation, the Korean Supreme Court has decided the extent of freedom of speech in consideration of all social circumstances. The defence only applies to the comments made on matters of public interest and to expression based on Truth. If a defendant can"t prove that the statement made is true, justification can be used as a defence if the defendant has an adequate reason that the publication made could be true and public interest. In consider

소유권적 언론자유에 대한 일고찰

문종대(Jong-dae Moon) 한국언론정보학회 2001 한국언론정보학보 Vol.17 No.-

로크의 자연권 이론 및 자연법 사상은 현대 언론사상에 많은 영향을 미치고 있다. 무엇보다도 자유주의적 언론입장을 이해하는 데 있어서 많은 시사점을 던져주고 있다. 본 논문은 로크의 사회계약론을 중심으로 로크가 자연권으로부터 이끌어낸 언론자유의 본질이 무엇인지, 그리고 소유권과 언론자유간의 관계가 어떠한지, 로크의 시민사회에서 언론자유가 어떻게 실현될 수 있는지, 그리고 국가는 어느 범위까지 언론에 개입할 수 있는지를 중심으로 분석했다. This thesis discussed the nature of freedom of speech with emphasis on Locke's theory of social contract. First, I examined the nature of freedom of speech induced from Locke's social contract, and argued that the nature of Locke's freedom of speech exists on the self-ownership of humans. Secondly, I studied how Locke's right of self-ownership was related to the right of freedom of speech and how it is realized in civil society. I could analyze how freedom of speech was actualized with unequality in the social relations. Thirdly, I investigated how Locke's possessive freedom of speech was materialized in the market society. I tried to find out the nature of freedom of speech actualization in the capitalist market society. Finally, I studied to what extent the state of Locke could intervene the freedom of speech and reconsidered the meaning of Locke's limit of natural right in modern society. Conclusively, Locke's notion of Natural Right and Law of Nature have greatly influenced contemporary idea of free speech. His idea helps understand the position of liberal democratic speech. It also shows well the relation of freedom of speech and Natural Right and has helped us understand freedom of speech in terms of the position of the right of property.

대학생들의 표현의 자유 인식과 저항적 정치 표현행위 결정요인 연구: 2016년 최순실 국정농단(박근혜-최순실 게이트) 사건을 중심으로

이정기 ( Lee Jeong-ki ) 한국지역언론학회 2017 언론과학연구 Vol.17 No.3

이 연구는 표현의 자유, 언론의 역할, 위축효과, 표현의 자유 보호 법리 제정, 저항적 정치표현의 관련성을 검증하기 위해 설계되었다. 구체적으로 이 연구는 최순실 국정농단(박근혜-최순실 게이트) 사건 관련 촛불집회 정국에서 표현의 자유 인식, 언론역할 인식, 정부 신뢰, 보복에 대한 두려움, 표현의 자유 보호 법리 제정 인식, 표현의 자유 현안 인식 변인을 활용하여 20대들의 저항적 정치 표현행위를 설명해 보고자 했다. 연구결과 첫째, 언론의 자유에 대한 필요성 인식이 높을수록, JTBC의 언론보도에 대해 만족할수록, 표현행위에 따른 보복의 두려움이 클수록 표현의 자유 보호 법리의 제정에 찬성하는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 언론의 자유의 필요성 인식이 높을수록, JTBC의 언론보도에 대해 만족할수록 표현의 자유와 보호와 관련된 각종 현안을 긍정적으로 인식하는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 지상파 방송사들의 언론보도에 대해 만족하지 않을수록, JTBC의 언론보도에 대해 만족할수록, 표현의 자유와 관련된 각종 현안을 긍정적으로 인식할수록 저항적 정치 표현행위가 나타났다. 연구자는 이상의 연구결과를 바탕으로 국가적 위기 상황에서 정부와 언론의 바람직한 역할이 무엇 인지에 대해 논하였다. This study was designed to test connections among freedom of speech, roles of the press, chilling effect, establishment of legal principle to protect freedom of speech, and resistant political expression. The study specifically set out to explain the acts of resistant political expression among individuals in their twenties in the current political situation of candlelight rallies regarding the Choi Soon-sil (Park Geun-hye) Scandal by utilizing such variables as the perceptions of freedom of speech, roles of the press, trust in the government, fear of retaliation, establishment of legal principle to protect freedom of speech, and pending issues of freedom of speech. The findings were as follows: first, the higher the perception of the need for freedom of speech they had, the more satisfied they were with the coverage by JTBC, and the greater the fear of retaliation for expressive acts they had, the more they were for the establishment of legal principle to protect freedom of speech. Secondly, the higher the perception of the need for freedom of speech they had and the more satisfied they were with the coverage by JTBC, the more positive they were about all kinds of pending issues related to freedom of speech and its protection. Finally, the less satisfied they were with the coverage by terrestrial TV stations, the more satisfied they were with the coverage by JTBC; and the more positive they were about all kinds of pending issues related to freedom of speech, the more they engaged in the acts of resistant political expression. Based on those findings, the investigator discussed the desirable roles of government and press in a national crisis situation.

미 연방헌법 수정 제1조의 해석과 자기통치의 원리

김윤홍(Kim, Yoon Hong) 충남대학교 법학연구소 2018 法學硏究 Vol.29 No.4

언론의 자유는 한편으로 개인적 영역에서 인격실현에 이바지하는 면을 가지고 있지만 다른 한편으로 공적 영역에서 민주주의 실현에 기여하는 특성을 지니고 있다. 이와 관련된 미 연방헌법 수정 제1조 언론의 자유에 대한 논의가 자기통치의 원리이다. 자기통치론에 따르면 언론의 자유는 민주주의 실현을 위한 기능 때문에 다른 기본권에 비해 더 강한 보호를 받는다고 본다. 자기통치론의 대표자는 미국의 교육자이자 철학자였던 마이클존이다. 그는 국민주권의 원리를 실현시키기 위해, 국민들이 선거권을 제대로 행사하기 위해 언론의 자유가 보장되어야 한다고 보았다. 그에 의하면 공적 영역에서의 언론의 자유는 수정 제1조의 규정대로 무제한적으로 보장되게 된다. 그에 의하면 언론의 자유가 곧 민주주의 그 자체였다. 자기통치론은 미 연방대법원에 의해 판결에 채택되었다. 브레넌 판사는 Sullivan 사건에서 마이클존의 논리에 의거하여 공직자에 대한 언론보도를 보호하는 판결을 내렸다. 그러나 자기통치론을 마이클존의 이론에 국한하여 이해할 것은 아니다. 언론의 자유에 대하여 자유주의적 전통에 입각한 홈즈의 명백하고 현존하는 위험의 원칙도 자기통치론의 뿌리를 가지고 있고, 수정 제1조 절대주의자로 알려진 핸드, 블랙, 더글라스 판사의 이론도 자기통치론과 연결점을 가지고 있다. 자기통치론은 사상의 자유시장이론과도 뿌리를 같이 하는 이론이다. 언론의 진정한 가치를 실현하고 언론의 자유에 우월한 지위를 인정하기 위해서 자기통치론에 대한 이해를 재정립할 필요가 있다. 자기통치론에 대한 좁은 이해에서 벗어날 필요가 있고 전통적 민주주의 이론에서 나아가 참여민주주의의 시각에서 언론을 바라볼 필요가 있다. 이와 같은 자기통치에 대한 시각의 정립은 현대사회에서 언론의 기능과도 무관하지 않다. 진정한 언론의 자유의 확립을 위해 끊임없는 노력이 필요한 시점이다. Freedom of speech, on the other hand, contributes to the realization of personality in the personal domain, but on the other hand it contributes to the realization of democracy in the public domain. The discussion relating to this, of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, freedom of speech, is the principle of self-government. According to self-goverment theory, the freedom of the speech seems to receive stronger protection than other fundamental rights because of its ability to realize democracy. The representative of self-goverment theory is Meiklejohn, an American educator and philosopher. In order to realize the principle of national sovereignty, he thought that the freedom of the speech should be guaranteed for the people to exercise their right to vote. According to him, freedom of speech in the public domain will be guaranteed without restriction, as provided for in the First Amendment. He regarded the freedom of speech as democracy itself. Self-government theory was adopted by the US Supreme Court. In the case of Sullivan, Justice Brennan ruled that Meiklejohn’s logic would protect the media coverage of public officials. However, it does not mean that self-government theory should be confined to Meiklejohn’s theory. Justice Holmes’s clear and present danger principles based on liberal traditions on the freedom of speech have their roots in self-goverment theory, and the theories of the Absolutists, Judge Hand, Justice Black, and Justice Douglas have the common connection point with self-goverment theory. Free marketplace of ideas theory also have the same roots with self-government theory. It is necessary to redefine the understanding of self-government theory in order to realize the true value of speech and approve affirmed Preferred Position of freedom of speech. There is a need to escape from a narrow understanding of self-government, and it is necessary to look at the speech from the viewpoint of participatory democracy instead of traditional democracy. Such an establishment of viewpoint of self-government theory is not irrelevant to the function of the speech in modern society. It is time for constant efforts to establish true freedom of speech.

정치적 양극화 시대의 표현의 자유 -참여민주주의를 위한 기능적 가치 회복을 위하여

장철준 사법발전재단 2020 사법 Vol.1 No.51

We are living in an era of political polarization. We can easily witness malicious behaviors based on hatred and destructive words attacking the opponents in our political lives. The more polarized we are, the more extreme our political speech become to get noticed, exacerbating the situation. Harms made from political polarization will compromise democracy in our society, the costs of which will be shifted to the people. This is an apt moment to ask a question: should expressions based on polarization be solidly protected under constitutional freedom of speech? Even though the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech as an individual’s fundamental rights, not all political speech is granted constitutional protection. Courts, in making decisions on the constitutional legitimacy of expressions, need to take into account the underlying value that protection of freedom of speech seeks, which is democracy. The forefathers of the First Amendment jurisprudence in the U.S., such as Judge Learned Hand, Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes, and Justice Louis Brandeis, who laid the groundwork for granting a strong protection for free speech, did not separate democratic value from freedom of speech. They made bold decisions with respect to the protection of free speech even though such decisions defied the opinion of the general public, as long as said speech was for the betterment of democracy. These judges believed that protection of the freedom of speech of the minority would eventually lay a cornerstone for majoritarian democracy. What would they say if they confront a politically polarized speech that deteriorates current Korean democracy by hindering discussions? Would they stand to protect such speech as well? The answer would be no because, according to their understanding, freedom of speech is not confined to the private domain. 정치적 양극화가 도래하였다. 정치의 상대방을 인정하지 않고 증오와 파괴의 언어를 써가며 서로를 무너뜨리려 하는 행태가 우리 주변에 만연해 있다. 극단성이 심해질수록 좀 더 자극적이지 않으면 눈에 띄기 어려운 상태로 빠져들기 때문에, 상태는 더욱 악화될 수밖에 없다. 양극화의 피해는 민주주의의 실종으로 드러날 것이며, 결국 국민 전체의 손해로 귀결될 것이다. 이 시점에서 우리는 양극화를 조장하는 언어를 여전히 표현의 자유로 보호하여야 하는지 되물어야 한다. 표현의 자유가 헌법이 보장하는 개인의 소중한 기본권임은 물론이지만, 정치적 표현이라 해서 모두가 헌법적 보호의 테두리에 들어올 수 있는 것은 아니다. 표현의 헌법적 정당성을 판단하는 사법 과정에서, 자유 그 자체로서 존재의 의의보다 자유가 추구하는 근본적 가치에 더욱 비중을 두어 사고하여야 한다. 그 가치는 바로 민주주의이다. 러니드 핸드 판사, 홈즈 대법관, 브랜다이즈 대법관 등, 미국 표현의 자유를 최고의 수준으로 만드는 데 기초를 제공한 수정헌법 제1조의 선구자들은, 표현의 자유 보호를 민주주의 가치와 분리하여 생각하지 않았다. 사회적 다수가 설령 자신의 생각과 다르더라도 민주주의의 활발한 토론을 위한 표현이면, 용기 있게 이를 보호하는 판결을 내렸다. 이것이 결국 민주적 다수주의를 위한 사법적 판단이다. 그들이 만약 지금 우리처럼 양극화의 시대를 살면서 민주적 토론을 저해하는 표현을 만났다면 어떤 반응을 보였을까? 표현을 개인의 사적 소유권 개념으로 판단하지 않았던 그들이 내릴 결론은 분명하다. 그것은 민주주의가 아니라고.

언론의 자유와 자기통치론 ― 마이클존의 자기통치 이론과 명백하고 현존하는 위험의 원칙을 중심으로 ―

김윤홍 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2018 서울법학 Vol.26 No.3

There are various views on the value of freedom of speech. One of them, the theory of self-government advocated by Alexander Micklejohn focuses on the political function of freedom of the speech and is trying to grasp the freedom of the speech in relation to democracy. He devided speech into public-speech and private-speech ans insisted that public-speech should be absolutely protected by Article 1 of the Amendment. He emphasized the social function of the speech, and argued that it was more important to speak what should be said rather than to speak. However, he was criticized because his absolute protection of the speech was restricted to only public-speech. The clear and present danger test developed in the US case law can be explained by the theory of self-government. Since this rule has developed mainly as the basis of the constitutionality examination standard of the state law which prescribes the punishment for the incitement speech and it is possible to fulfill the function of protecting the speech so that the exchange of opinions can be freely exchanged if taken the unmodified pure form. However, it is hard to deny that this rule was actually used as a bad tendency test or as an excuse to suppress the speech. But in Brandenberg test, it was even more strengthened than before. Article 21 of our Constitution recognizes and protects the supremacy of freedom of speech over other freedoms. The reason is that freedom of speech is related to the success or failure of democracy, but it can not ignore the value of private speech. Because the distinction between public and private speech is impossible without the examination of the contents, and all the speech should be political in a sense. In this context, it should be seen as most of speech is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. It should be noted, however, that the political speech is still subject to more weighted protection by virtue of the clear and present danger test recognized as justified as far. This is because the public speech is more valuable than the private speech because it is related to democracy. However, our law practice is skeptical about the direct application of this rule. But, regardless of the ups and downs in the United States, the birthplace of this rule, the active use of clear and present danger test must be sought for the thick protection of speech suitable for the original idea of this rule. 언론의 자유의 가치에 대하여는 여러 가지 견해가 존재한다. 그 중 알렉산더 마이클존에 의해 주창된 자기통치론은 언론의 자유의 정치적 기능에 착안한 것으로 언론의 자유를 민주주의와 관련하여 파악하려는 입장이다. 그는 공적 언론과 사적 언론을 나누고 공적 언론은 수정 제1조에 의해 절대적으로 보호되어야 한다고 보았다. 그는 언론의 사회적 기능을 중시하였기 때문에 말하는 것보다는 말해져야 하는 것을 말하는 것이 중요하다고 보았다. 다만 그의 언론에 대한 절대적 보호는 공적 언론에 그치는 것이었기 때문에 많은 비판을 받게 되었다. 미국 판례법상 발달한 명백하고 현존하는 위험의 원칙은 자기통치론에 입각한 원리로 설명되어질 수 있다. 이 원칙은 주로 선동적 언동에 대한 처벌을 규정한 주법의 합헌성 심사기준으로 발달해 왔으며, 변형되지 않은 순수한 형태를 취한다면 자유로운 의견의 교환이 이루어질 수 있도록 언론을 보호하는 기능을 충실히 할 가능성을 가지고 있기 때문이다. 다만 이 원칙이 실제로는 해악경향의 원칙으로 변질되기도 하였고 언론을 억압하기 위한 구실로 사용되기도 하였다는 점은 부인하기 어렵다. 그러나 브란덴버그 판결에서는 이전에 비해 더 강화된 모습을 보이기도 하였다. 우리 헌법 제21조는 다른 자유권에 비해 언론의 자유의 우월적 지위를 인정하고 더 보호하려고 한다. 그 이유는 언론의 자유가 민주주의의 성패와 연관되어 있기 때문이기도 하지만, 그렇다고 사적 언론의 가치를 무시할 수는 없다. 공적 사적 언론의 구별이 내용에 대한 심사를 행하지 않고서는 불가능할뿐더러, 모든 언론은 일면 정치적일 수밖에 없기 때문이다. 이렇게 이해할 때 우리 헌법 상 언론은 모두 헌법 제21조에 의해 보호되는 것으로 보아야 한다. 다만 정치적 언론은 아직도 그 타당성을 인정할 수 있는 명백하고 현존하는 위험의 원칙에 의해 더 가중된 보호를 받도록 되어 있다고 보아야 한다. 공적 언론은 민주주의 성패와 연관되어 있어 사적 언론에 비해 더 큰 가치가 있다고 볼 수 있기 때문이다. 다만 우리 현실은 명백하고 현존하는 위험의 원칙을 직접 적용하는 것에 대해 회의적이다. 그러나 이 원칙의 발상지인 미국에서의 성쇠와 관련 없이, 이 원칙의 원래의 이념에 충실하게 두터운 언론의 보호를 위해, 명백하고 현존하는 위험의 원칙의 적극적인 활용이 모색되어야 한다.

혐오표현과 표현의 자유

이광진 ( Kwang-jin Lee ) 한국법정책학회 2017 법과 정책연구 Vol.17 No.1

표현의 자유는 민주사회에서 불가결한 권리 중의 하나이고, 이를 구현하기 위한 의사표현의 형태는 다양하게 존재한다. 이러한 의사표현의 형태 중에는 표현의 자유의 가치를 향유하지 못하는 것도 있다. 그러한 것 중에서 최근 논의되고 있는 것 중의 하나가 혐오표현에 관한 문제이다. 우리나라는 사이버공간에서의 자유로운 표현활동이 활발하게 이루어지고 있고, 이러한 공간에서 타인의 권리를 침해하는 표현이 개인이나 특정 집단에 대한 혐오를 선동하는 부작용이 나타나고 있다. 또한 결혼이민이나 유학 등으로 다문화사회가 되면서 이러한 현상이 오프라인상에서도 나타나고 있다. 일반적으로 혐오표현은 성별, 민족적 출신, 종교, 인종, 장애 또는 성적 취향과 같은 속성을 기준으로 사람이나 소수자 집단을 공격하는 표현이라고 정의될 수 있다. 이러한 혐오표현을 규제하기 위한 노력은 국제사회뿐 아니라 개별국가에 서 공통적으로 나타나고 있다. 국제인권규약은 이러한 혐오표현을 규제할 의무를 가입국에게 부여하고 있다. 이러한 국제인권규약 중에서 `모든 형태의 인종차별철폐에 관한 국제규약`과 `시민적 및 정치적 권리에 관한 국제규약`에 우리나 라가 가입하였기 때문에 혐오표현을 규제하기 위한 입법의무가 존재한다. 그럼에도 불구하고 현재 혐오표현을 규제하기 위한 법률은 존재하지 않는다. 이와 관련하여 우리의 경우도 혐오표현을 규율하기 위한 입법의 필요성이 꾸준하게 제기되고 있는 상황이다. 이를 위하여 혐오표현을 규제하는 판례와 실정법을 정 비한 미국, 캐나다, 영국, 독일의 상황을 개관하고, 이를 바탕으로 혐오표현을 규제해야 할 적정성과 당위성을 검토한다. 사회적 해악성을 갖는 혐오표현은 표현의 자유의 가치를 향유하지 못한다는 점에는 의문점이 없다. 그러나 표현의 자유에 대한 제한은 최소한에 그쳐야 한다는 헌법적 요청에 부합하기 위해서는 규제대상이 되어야 할 혐오표현의 기준이 명확해야만 한다. 이를 위해서 혐오표현을 금지하는 입법은 그 대상을 명확하게 해야 한다. 즉, 금지의 대상이 되는 혐오표현의 유형을 물리적 폭력으로 한정할 것인지 아니면 혐오표현을 선동하거나 고취하는 것도 대상으로 할 것인지를 명확하게 정해야 한다. 그리고 금지의 사유를 어떻게 정할 것인지도 고려해야 한다. 캐나다의 경우 명시적으로 성적 소수자에 대한 혐오표현도 처벌의 대상으로 하고 있는 점도 참고사항이 될 수 있을 것이다. Freedom of expression is one of the indispensable rights of democratic society. There are various types of communicative expressions that realize freedom of expression. Some of these forms of communicative expression do not enjoy the value of freedom of expression. Recently one of the things that has been discussed is the problem of the hate speech. Korea has been actively engaged in free expression activities in cyberspace, and there is a side effect that the expressions that infringe the rights of others in this space incite the aversion to individuals or specific groups. In addition, these phenomena are manifesting in multicultural society due to marriage immigrant or studying abroad etc. Hate speech can be defined as a speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation. As the hate speech is recognized as a factor that threatens the state of human dignity, leading to discrimination, to the starting point of genocide, the debate has been further examined. Efforts to regulate hate speech are occurring not only in international organizations but also in individual countries. The International Covenant on Human Rights gives the member nations the obligation to regulate such hate speech. There is a legislative obligation to regulate the hate speech, as Korea has joined `the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination` and `the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights`(ICCPR). However, there is no law to regulate the present hate speech. In this regard, the necessity of legislation to regulate the hate speech is constantly being raised. To this end, I overview the situation in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany, which have established case law and statute that regulate hate speech. Based on this, I examine the appropriateness and justifiability to regulate the hate speech. There is no question that the malaise of hate speech on society does not enjoy the value of the freedom of expression. However, in order to comply with constitutional demands that restrictions on the freedom of expression should be kept to a minimum, the standards of hate speech to be regulated must be clear. To this end, legislation that prohibits hate speech should clarify the object. In other words, it should be clearly defined whether the type of hate speech to be prohibited should be limited to physical violence, or to incite or inspire hate speech. And how to determine the reason for the ban. In the case of Canada, it may also be pointed out that the hate speech to sexual minorities are also subject to punishment.