訂正報道請求權의 이른바 새로운 權利性 與否에 대한 檢討

The Study on the Right of Retraction of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports, 2005

&nbsp;&nbsp;The purpose of this Act is to make the freedom of the press compatible with public responsibilities thereof, by establishing any effective remedial system to settle disputes, if any, concerning the honor, rights or other legal interests violated by press reports through conciliation or arbitration. And this Act provided a right of retraction at Article 14[(1)A person who suffers any damage due to the falsity of a press report on a factual allegation may, within three months after that press report comes to his/her knowledge, require the relevant press organization to report a corrected statement of the contents of that press report. (2) A request for a report on a corrected statement under paragraph (1) shall be made, irrespective of intention, negligence or illegality of the relevant press organization.---] and Article 31[(Special Provisions in Case of Defamation) A court of competent jurisdiction may order any person who defames other persons to take measures appropriate for the restoration of their honor such as the publication of a corrected statement in lieu of or together with compensation for damage at their request. A request for a report on the corrected statement shall be made, irrespective of the&nbsp;&nbsp;illegality of the relevant press organization by intention or negligence.]. It occurred some problems related with these Articles, so the Constitutional Court made a decision as the right of retraction in this Act was a new right distinguished with original right of Civil Law. But this point have to examine constitutionally.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;Freedom of the press is not absolute. It must be balanced against other competing social interests. True press freedom is a fundamental value, and its realization should be as important a social objectives as the equally important, and sometimes competing, value of protecting the freedom of the institutional media. We should reject the premise that press freedom automatically provides free expression for the entire society. Free expression for all members of society cannot be realized without some measure of media accountability. The question remains whether a right of retraction and reply for damages provides the best vehicle for promoting media accountability. Defamation damages and vindication statutes provide a form of media accountability. But neither of these remedies provides consistent relief within the media forum, which should be the scene of debate.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;A newspaper&quot;s right to publish what it choose in its absolute discretion has been considered. Newspapers may publish what they choose without any obligation to provide those they attack with the right to respond. At the same time, right of retraction and reply, the existing vehicle for media accountability, is subject to intense criticism from the media. There is a relationship between these two realities. The victim&quot;s inability to secure an effective reply and retraction to media attack is a fundamental factor in the current rash. Any interaction with law, or subordination to law, chills expression, but a right of reply is less damaging and less intimidating to the media than is the heavy damages that might befall them in a libel suit or by a right of retraction.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;This Act doesn&quot;t provide a intent or reckless of news media. But this point is an important issues. Vindication and retraction statutes differ in that the reply is written by the party defamed, while the retraction is written by the publisher. An absolute protection for editorial autonomy, this is particularly true in the context of defamation. The editorial autonomy rights of media must be weighed against the reputational and expression rights of individuals. If a particular newspaper or broadcast station engages in defamatory falsehood, the readers, listeners, or viewers will turn away from it. Public reaction, therefore, provides the ultimate accountability. So it is so important to us to be a