언론개혁에 관한 헌법학적 연구

A Constitutional Study on the Press Reform

&nbsp;&nbsp;This study is a kind of drawing a boundary around the state&quot;s authority to regulate the press. The position of the boundary reflects a balance of two conflicting interests - the value of free expression v. the interests advanced by the state to support regulation. Especially, this study inquires whether the state might have a role in furthering the democratic mission of the press, and whether the state might have more of a role to play in regulating the press than had been previously allowed.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;The proponents of press reform in Korea have broached the subject of media reform, especially after the political democratization of Korean society in 1987. Traditionally the legal theories surrounding the freedom of expression and the corporate media system have been supported by several dogmas or myths. To solve the problems of Korean free market of ideas, the Act on Protection of Freedom and Function of the Press was enacted in 2005. 1. This study analyzes the Act in three parts as follows.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;Firstly, this study analyzes the constitutionality of the means to deal with media concentration to preserve the viewpoints diversity in Korean free market of ideas. The state is able to enhance ‘the robustness of public debate’ by its own powers of regulation. In this context, the means to deal with media concentration of the Act should be supported.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;Secondly, this study analyzes the constitutionality of the provisions of constituting an editing committee which is entitled to make decisions of content trend in the newspaper. For this, this study inquires the concept ‘Function of the Press’ of §21③ of Korean Constitution in the perspective of the revision of Korean Constitution. I believe that the concept ‘Function of the Press’ of §21③ means the editorial freedom. In this context, the provisions of constituting an editing committee to preserve the editorial freedom should be supported.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;Thirdly, this study analyzes the constitutionality of mono-medium ownership regulation which was not adopted in the Act. This part presents a subject difficult of solution in the context of protection of individual properties. But I believe that the mono-medium ownership regulation mechanism is needed.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;The autonomy protected by the freedom of expression and enjoyed by individuals and the press is not an end in itself, but is rather a means to further the democratic values underlying our Constitution. Finally, the state may be an oppressor, but it may also be a source of freedom.