방송·통신 영역에서 자율규제와 법제도 구성에 관한 고찰 = Consideration on self-regulation and legal system composition in the broadcasting and communication areas

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Self-regulation can be defined as “an organized business group self-regulating the actions of its members to protect users.” If there is a need to respect the autonomous discipline of the business organization itself in a specific field, it would be good to introduce a self-regulation system. In newly emerging areas, areas that are rapidly changing or areas that require specialized or policy considerations, would be appropriate for business organizations in those areas to self-regulate because existing legal regulations do not reflect reality or cannot properly reflect reality. Even if a self-regulation system is introduced, the degree of legal intervention in the self-regulation system of business organizations may vary depending on the characteristics of the industry. If the scope of the area is diverse or subject to frequent change, the scope of self-regulation may be narrowed due to strong legal intervention, and in areas dealing with detailed, technical, and specialized matters, the private sector should be able to demonstrate efficiency and expertise. It is desirable to reduce the degree of legal intervention through self-regulation.
In relation to freedom of speech, due to the constitutional order to guarantee the public’s freedom of expression as much as possible, state regulation should be minimized, and self-regulation by business organizations to replace it is judged to be effective. In addition, due to the emergence of new technologies and technological advancement in the field of broadcasting and communications, regulation by the existing positive system for industries in this field makes efficient industrial development difficult. However, as the provision of information through social media, Internet news, OTT services etc., the side effects caused by digital media exceeded a certain level and reached a level of social conflict and infringement of other people’s rights, countries around the world have started to regulate illegal information through national legal regulations. Self-regulation was judged to be insufficient to prevent the creation and distribution of false information, hate speech, etc. In order for a self-regulatory system to operate properly, it is important to secure the democratic legitimacy of self-regulatory organizations, operational transparency, independence, and enforcement of regulations.
The German self-regulatory organization for multimedia service providers is the German Self-Regulation Organization for Multimedia Service Providers(FSM). The German Youth and Media Protection Committee approved FSM, a self-regulatory organizationy, to protect youth from media content. The United States is a country that operates a representative private self-regulation system. However, direct administrative regulations have recently become more prominent in the broadcasting and communications fields due to issues such as unfair trade or monopoly. The UK's self-regulatory organization is the Internet Watch Foundation(IWF). IWF carries out tasks such as deleting posts related to child sexual abuse, blocking access, and preventing search/access, and is operating a hotline as the most basic activity to make this possible. The Australian Communications and Media Authority(ACMA) is the broadcasting and communications regulator. ACMA is a government-affiliated organization and is a co-regulation model between the government and the private sector that supports and cooperates in the establishment of industry codes.
The self-regulation system stipulated in Korea’s Information and Communications Network Act is actually close to administrative regulation. It is appropriate for information and communication service provider organizations to determine and implement a code of conduct for information and communication service providers, rather than a matter to be stipulated in the Information and Communications Network Act, and for information and communication service provider organizations to make ...

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 김지현, "호주와 영국의 온라인 안전 입법 동향" 2022
• 2 윤혜선, "호주방송통신미디어위원회의 규제집행절차와 시사점 – 통신규제를 중심으로 -" 법학연구소 (33) : 1-38, 2011
• 3 이부하, "헌법의 수호자로서 헌법재판소의 민주적 정당성" 법학연구소 42 (42): 209-228, 2018
• 4 이부하, "헌법유보와 법률유보" 한국공법학회 36 (36): 201-224, 2008
• 5 김유향, "해외 인터넷 자율규제의 변화와 한국 자율규제의 미래"
• 6 김세준, "전자상거래법 규제개선으로서의 자율규제" 한국재산법학회 39 (39): 61-92, 2022
• 7 선지원, "자율규제의 유형별 사례와 플랫폼 자율규제를 위한 시사점" 법학연구소 15 (15): 86-104, 2022
• 8 양천수, "자율규제와 법다원주의" 법과사회이론학회 (73) : 35-64, 2023
• 9 김상택, "자율규제 확대에 따른 전문규제기관 기능 및 역할에 관한 연구" 방송통신위원회 2016
• 10 임다혜, "영국, 온라인 안전 법안(Online Safety Bill) 발의"
• 11 이부하, "선거원칙에 대한 논의와 선거권과 관련한 헌법재판의 심사기준" 법학연구소 31 : 171-193, 2014
• 12 이계일, "사법의 민주적 정당화—인적 정당성 문제에 관한 독일의 논의를 중심으로—" 한국법철학회 16 (16): 249-294, 2013
• 13 이부하, "보장국가에서 국민의 안전보호와 관련한 헌법이론" 한국헌법학회 22 (22): 217-246, 2016
• 14 윤혜선, "방송통신규제 개선방향에 관한 소고 : 호주의 사례에서 본 협동규제의 의의와 방식을 중심으로" 법학연구소 5 (5): 202-219, 2012
• 15 송영주, "방송 규제기관의 독립성과 책무성: 프랑스, 이탈리아, 스페인 규제기관에 대한 비교연구" 한국방송학회 37 (37): 157-196, 2023
• 16 허완중, "민주적 정당성" 한국법학원 (128) : 132-153, 2012
• 17 윤병희, "미국 통신품위법상 대화형 컴퓨터 서비스 제공자의 면책과 EARN IT Act의 이해" 법학연구원 문화.미디어.엔터테인먼트법연구소 14 (14): 131-160, 2020
• 18 최은창, "미 통신품위법 개정, 허위정보 범람 막을까?"
• 19 이해원, "개인정보 보호 자율규제의 사법적(私法的) 의의 및 개선 방안" 법제처 699 : 127-162, 2022
• 20 GOV.UK, "Online Safety Bill"