All
| TITLE | Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Du49474 Decided November 21, 2019【Revocation of Sanction Orders】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Whether programs subject to review of impartiality and public nature under the Broadcasting Act are confined to “news reporting programs” (negative) [2] Meaning of objectivity, impartiality, and balance as stated under Article 6(1) of the Broadcasting Act and Articles 9(1) and (2) and 14 of the former regulations concerning review of broadcasts, and the meaning of “socially disputed issues or matters of fierce controversy” [3] Whether the distinctive characteristics of broadcasting medium, channel and program have to be considered when determining whether a broadcast content is impartial and of public nature (affirmative) [4] Whether a broadcast content illustrating defamatory facts about public figures subject to historical evaluation constitutes a breach of Article 20(2) of the former Review Regulations (negative in principle), and where the statement is concerned with the public interest and truth, or where there are considerable reasons to believe in its veracity, whether the said broadcast content is subject to sanctions measures as prescribed in Article 100(1) of the Broadcasting Act (negative) Meaning of “only when the purpose is for the public interest” and “true facts” Whether defamation and insulting remarks that do not contain statement of facts can be subsumed under a violation of Article 20 of the former regulations concerning review of broadcasts prohibiting defamation (negative) [5] In the case where: (a) Broadcaster A, an incorporated foundation that operates a public-access television channel as a program-providing business entity under the Broadcasting Act, broadcasted [(Program Title 1 Omitted)] and [(Program Title 2 Omitted)], documentaries produced by Incorporated Association C, a viewer, on multiple occasions; (b) the Korea Communications Commission issued a disciplinary action and warning against the person related to the relevant broadcast program pursuant to Articles 100(1)3, 100(1)4 and 100(4) of the Broadcasting Act on the grounds that each of the said broadcast programs violated Articles 9(1) and (2) and Article 14 on objectivity and impartiality and Article 20(2) regarding defamation of a deceased person in the former Review Regulations, the case holding that: (a) the deliberation on objectivity, impartiality, and balance of a broadcast program based on its overall impression conveyed by taking into consideration the distinctive characteristics of the said broadcast program in terms of medium, channel and program reveals that readily concluding that each of the said broadcast programs violated the obligation to maintain objectivity, impartiality, and balance under the former Review Regulations, either by having distorted the truth or by having failed to reflect the opinions of the relevant parties in a balanced manner, is difficult; and (b) each of the said broadcast programs may not be considered to have violated Article 20(2) of the former Review Regulations stipulating defamation of decedents, or imposing sanctions measures pursuant to Article 20(3) of the former Review Regulations is not feasible |
|
