보도피해구제제도의 현황과 개선방안에 관한 연구 : 언론평의회의 가능성을 중심으로

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Confliction between individual basic right and freedom of expression might be inevitable, no matter how much efforts are exerted to the harmony of these two constructs. How can we keep a balance between them? In the Japanese constitutional theory, freedom of expression is understood as a 'right to know' for acquiring the information necessary for civil autonomy. It is thus a sort of political right endowed with a status that has priority over any other human rights.
This is the premise in the adjustment between personality right and freedom of expression. Therefore, priority is determined based on the extent of a right to know. In the case citizens must have a right to know to achieve democratic self-government, freedom of information should take precedence. On the other hand, if there is no need for a 'right to know', personality right of citizens should have priority. In other words, in the cases of bribery or an abuse of power by politicians or government officials, a right to know take precedence (report based on real names), while in the crimes of ordinary citizens a right to know doesn't have priority (report based on anonymity). What is especially important in this decision is whether the person in the news is a general citizen or a public figure.
In our society, the concept of a public figure has not been established clearly. For a balanced development of the society, an appropriate harmony between the two parties is important more than anything. When the civil society and the press achieve reciprocal cooperation, democracy would become mature. On the contrary, when the civil society suffers from the damages of press reports (e.g. defamation of character) and thus has a distrust against the press, the political authority attempts to control the press inspired by the negative public opinion. The result of this is nothing but the retrogression of society.
Then, the remaining question is how we can achieve a maximum guarantee in the freedom of the press while respecting the personality right of individuals based on mutual trust.
First of all, autonomous regulations by the press can be a solution. This is an attempt to recover trust of the civil society by the press that has enjoyed mighty status as the fourth power of the society. The formulation of ethical principles, deliberation of articles, gate-keeping, article reviews by lawyers, or installation of an internal organization for relieving the damages from the press reports.
Second solution may be heteronomous regulations, such as an enactment of media acts or pre-censorships, which should never be permitted because they can be misused as a means to regulate the press by the national authority.
Most of the practices in the autonomous regulations are concerned with the countermeasures to the lawsuits filed by the victims of the press reports or with the internal inspections by the press. But, these efforts have limitations in that these are carried out by the internal organizations of the press and that they can't avoid the characteristics of defensive journalism. Now, new autonomous regulatory institutions should appear from the disinterested party in order to actively promote freedom of press, to prevent interventions from the political authority, and to enhance social trust for the press.
The present study considers the institutions for relieving the damages from the press reports in Korea, and examines the present problems of these institutions. In addition, the study also considers the institutions of many developed countries, whose environments for the press are maturer than ours. Based on this comparison, this study proposes the conditions of desirable institutions for the future.
In conclusion, an introduction of press council will be able to promote autonomous damage relief in the press. For the purpose of recovering the trust between the civil society and the press and preventing improper interventions by the political authority, introduction of press council would be an urgent matter to be considered.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차 = ⅰ
• 제1장 서론 = 1
• 제1절 연구의 목적과 연구문제 = 1
• 제2절 연구방법과 범위 = 4
• 제2장 언론자유와 보도에 의한 권리침해 = 7
• 제1절 보도피해분쟁 발생이론과 현황 = 7
• 1. 언론자유와 알권리 = 7
• 2. 보도피해 분쟁의 급증 = 9
• 제2절 보도에 의한 인격권의 침해 = 14
• 1. 명예훼손과 면책요건 = 14
• 2. 사생활보호와 프라이버시권 침해 = 17
• 3. 기타 인격권 = 18
• 제3절 보도피해 구제제도의 개관 = 20
• 1. 보도피해구제제도의 의의와 필요성 = 20
• 2. 보도피해 구제제도의 종류 = 21
• 제3장 해외의 보도피해 구제제도 = 26
• 제1절 주요국가의 언론평의회기구 = 26
• 1. 영국의 언론불만처리위원회 = 26
• 2. 미국의 언론 평의회 = 32
• 3. 스웨덴의 언론평의회 = 35
• 4. 독일의 언론평의회 = 36
• 5. 호주 및 뉴질랜드의 언론평의회 = 37
• 제2절 주요국가의 언론옴부즈맨 제도 = 39
• 1. 스웨덴형 옴부즈맨 제도 = 39
• 2. 미국형 옴부즈맨 제도 = 40
• 제3절 일본 신문사의 제3자기관 운용과 한계 = 42
• 1. 신문사의 자율적 제3자기관 = 42
• 제4장 국내 보도피해 구제제도의 한계 및 대안 = 49
• 제1절 신문윤리위원회 활동 = 49
• 제2절 언론중재위원회의 활동 = 58
• 1. 언론중재위원회의 탄생 = 58
• 2. 언론중재위원회의 성장 = 61
• 3. 언론중재위원회의 조직과 재정 = 64
• 4. 중재신청 접수·처리현황 = 65
• 제3절 기타 자율규제제도 = 72
• 1. 변호사 기사열람제 = 72
• 2. 독자인권위원회 등 언론피해구제제도 = 75
• 제4절 언론자율규제기구의 대안 = 78
• 1. 기존제도의 문제점과 한계 = 78
• 2. 타율규제와 자율규제의 조화 = 86
• 3. 언론평의회 도입의 근거 = 89
• 4. 언론평의회의 구성과 기능 = 92
• 제6장 결론 = 96
• 제1절 연구요약 = 96
• 제2절 연구한계 = 98
• 〈참고문헌〉 = 99
• ABSTRACT = 104