Are you a cartoonist concerned about your freedom of expression online? Please take part in the largest survey ever conducted on cartoonists’ online experiences!
Deadline June 15, 2025 – see here for more info.
Closed Expands Expression
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:
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
Article 100, section 1, item 1, of South Korea’s Broadcasting Act (Act) was found to be unconstitutional because it amounted to an excessive restriction on speech by allowing the Korea Communications Commission (Commission) to take disciplinary measures against broadcasters by requiring them to make a public apology.
After the Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation (Munhwa) violated the Deliberation Rules (whether or not these rules actually violated the South Korean Constitution was not considered), the Commission ordered Munhwa to make a public apology to its viewers. This disciplinary action was pursued according to the Commission’s power derived under article 100, section 1, item 1, of the Act. Munhwa filed suit, stating it had not violated the Deliberation Rules; the court then submitted the case to the Constitutional Court of Korea for a determination as to the constitutionality of the Act.
The Constitutional Court of Korea found the provision in article 100, section 1, item 1, of the Act, which permitted the Commission to order violators to make a public apology, to be unconstitutional. The Court held that requiring broadcasters to make a public apology against their will hindered freedom of expression and was not the least restrictive means possible of achieving the purposes of the Act. Other disciplinary measures identified in the act, such as the issuance of a warning, were better suited to meet the least restrictive means standard. The Court emphasized the existence of a legal personality right that was harmed by requiring a public apology.
One justice dissented, arguing that the legal personality right is limited to individual human beings. The application of this right to a legal entity, a broadcasting corporation, goes beyond the scope of the right.
Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
This case before the Constitutional Court of Korea expanded expression because it protected freedom of speech by refusing to allow the Korea Communications Commission to force a broadcasting company to make a public apology. It further expands expression by allowing a legal entity, a broadcasting corporation, the protections of a legal personality.
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.
