공인에 대한 보도의 자유와 인격권 보장의 조화에 관한 연구 : A Legal Study on the Harmonization between Freedom of the Press for a Public Figure and the Protection of Personal Rights
- 발행기관 서강대학교 대학원
- 지도교수 홍성방
- 발행년도 2007
- 학위수여년월 2007. 8
- 학위명 석사
- 학과 및 전공 법학
- 식별자(기타) 000000104420
- 본문언어 한국어
목차
최근 우리 사회는 보도의 주체인 언론사와 그 주요 대상인 공인 간의 갈등과 대립이 극심해지고 있어 이에 대한 조화롭고 합리적인 충돌 해결기준의 마련이 시급 절실한 상황이다. 이에 이 연구는 공인에 대한 보도의 자유와 개인의 인격권이라는 서로 상충되는 헌법적 가치들이 조화롭게 우리 사회에 구현될 수 있는 기준이 무엇인지를 모색하는 것이다.
헌법에 근거한 표현의 자유와 헌법상 인격권으로서의 명예권 등 기본권은 항상 충돌가능성을 내재하고 있는데 이는 표현의 자유의 주요 과업이 공적 문제 및 공인에 관한 보도를 통해 사회적 감시자 역할을 해내는 것이고, 이러한 자유의 충실한 이행은 결국 공인의 인격권을 침해할 가능성을 필수적으로 수반하는 것이기 때문이다.
이러한 기본권 충돌의 문제를 해결하기 위해 각 국가에서는 자신들의 국가적 문화, 법제에 적합한 법리를 확립하여 왔고, 이 가운데 최근 우리나라에서 가장 많이 논의되고 있는 것이 미국의 ‘공인이론’이다. ‘공인이론’이란 1964년 미국 뉴욕타임즈 판결로부터 출발한 것으로서 보도대상자를 신분에 따라 공인과 사인으로 구별하여, 공인인 경우에 명예훼손 책임을 부담시키기 위하여는 피고의 ‘현실적 악의’를 원고가 입증해야 한다는 법리이다.
한편 대륙법계 국가 가운데 독일은 표현의 자유에 의하여 타인의 기본권이 침해되는 경우, 개별적 사건마다 상충하는 법익간의 구체적인 교량과정을 거치는 ‘이익형량’의 원칙을 통해 해결하고 있다. 따라서 공인이라는 신분기준에 따라 명예훼손의 성립요건을 달리하거나 입증책임이 달라지지는 않는다.
우리의 경우 최근 공인 등의 소송급증에 따라 언론의 사회적 감시역할이 위축될 소지가 높아지자 언론계 및 학계에서는 우리의 명예훼손 법리에 대한 개선을 요구하는 목소리가 높아지게 되었다. 그리고 미국의 ‘현실적 악의 원칙’ 도입을 비롯한 많은 주장이 제기되었다.
이러한 논의의 혼란 가운데 대법원은 2002년 ‘공적인 존재의 정치적 이념에 대한 보도에 관한 새로운 기준을 제시하였고, 이를 필두로 공인의 공적활동과 관련된 보도에 있어서 적용될 법적 기준을 구체화, 명확화 시켜 나가기 시작하였다.
이에 현재에는 공직자의 도덕성, 청렴성, 그리고 업무처리의 공정성에 대한 의혹제기라는 유형에 있어서는 ‘의혹의 제기가 악의적이거나 현저히 상당성을 잃은 공격이 아닌 한 쉽게 제한되어서는 안된다’는 별개의 독자적 심사기준을 확립하였고, 이를 공직사회 전반으로 확대하였다. 그리고 이와 같은 대법원의 기준들은 우리나라 특유와 문화와 법률제도 및 기타 상황을 복합적으로 고려한 합리적이고 타당한 해결원칙으로 보여진다.
따라서 현재로서는 공인의 공적 활동에 대한 보도에 있어서는 독자적인 심사기준의 확대 및 구체화, 유형화를 통해 공인에 대한 비판의 자유와 공인의 명예 보호라는 충돌되는 두 이익간의 조화를 이루는 것이 타당하다고 판단된다.
목차
Recently the conflicts and struggles between the press agencies and public figures over various press reports have increased so overwhelmingly that setting a standard of harmonized and reasonable dispute resolutions is in urgent need. Thus this study is mainly aimed to seek effective solutions and criteria for harmonizing conflicting constitutional rights, that is, freedom of the press for a public figure and the protection of personal rights.
The freedom of the press means the social watchdog, bringing injustices and wrongdoings of public characters to general attention. The protection of personal rights, on the other hand, as also a constitutional right, predicates the respect for basic human rights such as honor, privacy, portraits, and so forth. If the former right is stressed too much, the latter would be infringed, and vice versa. So these rights inevitably face the possibility of confliction.
So each country has developed various legal principles to solve the complicated problem, inherent to its culture and legal system. Among them, ''the public official theory'' in the United States is the most discussed subject. It is derived from the U. S. Supreme Court''s judgment of the New York Times case. The ruling declared that a social position separates a public figure from the other citizens, and if the former is to win the libel case against the press agencies, he or she as a plaintiff should prove ''the actual malice'' of the defendant.
Germany, one of the nations in the continental legal systems, has developed a principle of ''measurement of legal interests''. It does not separate a public figure from the other citizens. Instead, it stresses a process in which several different rights are to be measured in every single case accordant to its importance.
Recently Korea has seen increased libel lawsuits by public figures like congressmen against press agencies, so there were callings for a change in legal principles concerning the libel cases, worrying about the contraction of the press as a social watchdog. In the controversy, some insisted on introducing ''the actual malice'' principle of the United States.
As a result, the Supreme Court of Korea declared in 2002 a new standard in the libel case between a public person and the press, ruling that the disclosing coverage of the press should not be restrained unless it is with malicious intent and of considerably insufficient evidences. The judgment was followed by a series of specific and concrete rulings concerning the press reports over public activities of public figures.
The Supreme Court ruling is known as an unique and reasonable criterion of freedom of the press to the morality, cleanness and fairness of public officials, considering the Korean culture, legal systems and other present circumstances.
Thus, it is appropriate to harmonize the conflicting legal interests, that is, the right of the press to criticize and the protection of human rights a public figure has, by materializing and categorizing an independent standard of the press coverage over the public figures.
A Legal Study on the Harmonization between Freedom of the Press for a Public Figure and the Protection of Personal Rights
Recently the conflicts and struggles between the press agencies and public figures over various press reports have increased so overwhelmingly that setting a standard of harmonized and reasonable dispute resolutions is in urgent need. Thus this study is mainly aimed to seek effective solutions and criteria for harmonizing conflicting constitutional rights, that is, freedom of the press for a public figure and the protection of personal rights.
The freedom of the press means the social watchdog, bringing injustices and wrongdoings of public characters to general attention. The protection of personal rights, on the other hand, as also a constitutional right, predicates the respect for basic human rights such as honor, privacy, portraits, and so forth. If the former right is stressed too much, the latter would be infringed, and vice versa. So these rights inevitably face the possibility of confliction.
So each country has developed various legal principles to solve the complicated problem, inherent to its culture and legal system. Among them, ''the public official theory'' in the United States is the most discussed subject. It is derived from the U. S. Supreme Court''s judgment of the New York Times case. The ruling declared that a social position separates a public figure from the other citizens, and if the former is to win the libel case against the press agencies, he or she as a plaintiff should prove ''the actual malice'' of the defendant.
Germany, one of the nations in the continental legal systems, has developed a principle of ''measurement of legal interests''. It does not separate a public figure from the other citizens. Instead, it stresses a process in which several different rights are to be measured in every single case accordant to its importance.
Recently Korea has seen increased libel lawsuits by public figures like congressmen against press agencies, so there were callings for a change in legal principles concerning the libel cases, worrying about the contraction of the press as a social watchdog. In the controversy, some insisted on introducing ''the actual malice'' principle of the United States.
As a result, the Supreme Court of Korea declared in 2002 a new standard in the libel case between a public person and the press, ruling that the disclosing coverage of the press should not be restrained unless it is with malicious intent and of considerably insufficient evidences. The judgment was followed by a series of specific and concrete rulings concerning the press reports over public activities of public figures.
The Supreme Court ruling is known as an unique and reasonable criterion of freedom of the press to the morality, cleanness and fairness of public officials, considering the Korean culture, legal systems and other present circumstances.
Thus, it is appropriate to harmonize the conflicting legal interests, that is, the right of the press to criticize and the protection of human rights a public figure has, by materializing and categorizing an independent standard of the press coverage over the public figures.
