Global Freedom of Expression

Ban on Internet Distribution of Obscene Materials Case

Closed Mixed Outcome

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Electronic / Internet-based Communication
  • Date of Decision
    May 28, 2009
  • Outcome
    Decision Outcome (Disposition/Ruling), Law or Action Upheld
  • Case Number
  • Region & Country
    Korea, Republic of, Asia and Asia Pacific
  • Judicial Body
    Constitutional Court
  • Type of Law
    Constitutional Law
  • Themes
    Indecency / Obscenity
  • Tags

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The Constitutional Court of South Korea found that an Act which penalized the distribution of obscene materials was constitutional because the relevant provision  did not violate the rule of clarity nor the prohibition on excessive restriction/principle of proportionality. However, the Court also set an important precedent in its judgment by recognizing that not all obscene materials should be refused protection under the Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of expression. In so doing, the Court reasoned that an expression cannot be excluded from the boundary of protection of the freedom of expression at the outset just because it contains certain content. Instead,  it said that “insulting expressions” that may infringe on others’ reputation or rights are to be protected as freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, but that such expressions can be restricted for the purpose of national security, maintenance of law and order, or public welfare.



In this case the petitioners were prosecuted under Article 65 of the former “Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection” for openly displaying and distributing obscene materials over the internet. The petitioners applied to the lower court for constitutional review of this provision which was denied. They subsequently appealed to the Constitutional Court arguing that the provision violated the rule of clarity, that the law was not sufficiently clear to be predictable, and the rule against excessive restriction/principle of proportionality.

Decision Overview

The Court unanimously held the Act constitutional.

Article 65 of the Former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection provides that, “[a]ny person who has distributed, sold, rented, or openly displayed lascivious codes, letters, sounds, visuals, or films through information and communications networks shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 1 year or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won. ” Although the Court found that just because something is considered obscene does not necessarily mean that it is not protected under the Constitution (overruling previous precedent), it held that this provision, as written, was constitutional because it did not violate the rule of clarity nor the prohibition on excessive restriction. However, the Court also overruled its precedent that an “obscene” expression is not protected by Article 21 of the Constitution which protects freedom of speech and the press. In this regard it ruled that although obscene materials can be protected under the Constitution, they can be regulated for certain purposes including the promotion of public welfare as applied in this case.

Three justices gave a concurring Opinion in which they clarified what they considered “obscenity” entailed under the instant provision. Referring to the U.S. Constitution and German criminal law, the justices stated that obscenity as referred to in the Act is “indecent and blunt sexual expression that distorts human dignity or personality, that solely appeals to sexual interest, and that overall has no literary, artistic, scientific or political values.” The justices further explained that the Act did not violate the rule of clarity because it offered a sufficient guideline for individuals as to what was considered obscene.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Mixed Outcome

Although the case seems to expand expression by overruling previous precedent holding that any obscene expressions are not protected under freedom of speech protections in the Constitution, the Court also found that a restriction on the distribution of obscene materials is necessary for the promotion of public welfare without giving any significant guidance as to what would be considered obscene under the Act.

South Korea has a history of censorship, and continues today to ban the distribution and production of pornography, punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of up to 10 million won. South Korea therefore continues to censor internet websites that are accessible by their citizens, which proponents of freedom of expression may view as an unconstitutional restraint.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • S. Kor., Former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (revised by Act No. 6360 Jan. 16. 2001 but before revised by Act No. 8289 Jan. 26. 2007), Art. 65
  • S. Kor., Constitution of South Korea (1948), art. 31.
  • S. Kor., Constitution of South Korea (1948), art. 37.
  • S. Kor., Constitution of South Korea (1948), art. 21.

Other national standards, law or jurisprudence

  • U.S., Constitution of the United States (1789), First Amendment.

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:


Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback