• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.211-244
• /
• 2007

Article 17 and 18 of the Korean Constitution respectively prescribe the violation of individual's right to privacy and the secrecy of wire communication. Meanwhile, Article 20 of the Criminal Code provides that an act which is conducted within the ambit of laws or pursuant to accepted business practices or which does not violate the social norms shall not be punishable. In 1999, the Constitutional Court held that media reports on public matters of public figures must be given strong constitutional protection, and treated differently from reports on private matters of private figures. In accordance with the decision, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression since 2002. This study analyzes the issue of media liability for publication of illegally intercepted wire communication by a third person. Particularly, it reviews Seoul High Court's ruling on 'X-file scandal' which disclosed intercepted wire communications between notable public figures regarding a slush fund for a presidential candidate. In the light of this analysis, the study concludes that the media reporting of the intercepted communication does not violate social norms of Article 20, and therefore it is entitled to a constitutional privilege.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.32
• /
• pp.333-367
• /
• 2006

This paper attempted to examine to what extent advertising as expression has been constitutionally protected through an analysis on the reputational-right-related legal cases. In order to make the understanding more clearly, this paper applied Van Alstyne's graphical depiction on how commercial speech is protected compared with other constitutional rights such as political speech, private expression, defamation, and obscene expression. Through the analysis, this paper found out that first, in the legal cases, there has been no consideration on whether the status of the plaintiff is public figure or private figure, whereas in the libel cases, Korean courts has made a distinction between public figure and private figure since 2002; second, when the case is concerned with corporations, the Korean courts do not give consideration on the status of corporation, while the status of corporation is a somewhat important factor in deciding the degree of responsibility in the U.S.; third, even though it is clear that advertising in Korea is being protected as expression, it is nebulous whether it is well balanced with other personal rights that are constitutionally protected. Conclusively, applying the Alstyne's graphical depiction on Korean advertising, it advertising as expression in Korea is being provided lower protection than defamation. To put it differently, like the case in the U.S., advertising, although it is allegedly protected as expression, does not yet enjoy full-fledged constitutional protection in Korean society. Rather, there must be some actions to be taken to enhance the degree of protection of advertising.