초록

용어보기논문에서 용어와 풀이말을 자동 추출한 결과로, 시범 서비스 중입니다. AI-Helper

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

This paper analyzed Korean courts" decisions on privacy invasion by the press. Court cases were grouped according to four different types of privacy invasion as introduced by Prof. Prosser in 1960 and has been widely accepted since then in the United States. In Korean courts, twenty-six privacy case...

This paper analyzed Korean courts" decisions on privacy invasion by the press. Court cases were grouped according to four different types of privacy invasion as introduced by Prof. Prosser in 1960 and has been widely accepted since then in the United States. In Korean courts, twenty-six privacy cases were found from 1990 to 2004: three cases by intrusion, nine cases by disclosure of private facts, twelve cases by false light, and three cases by appropriation. The press won in 8 out of 26 cases. In their rulings the Korean courts showed a tendency of making distinction between public and private figures and limiting privacy protection for public figures. The courts repeatedly decided that well-known public figures should accept public scrutiny even on their private matters. Meanwhile, the court ordered the press stricter protection for private figures, even if the reports on them were related with legitimate public concern. While the courts underscored the importance of balance between public"s right to know and privacy protection, they failed to provide consistent and clear standard to distinguish public and private figures or public and private concerns. Such an absence of clear legal standards make it difficult for the Korean press to prevent illegal invasion of privacy in their news gathering and reporting. More unequivocal legal standards on the public/private dichotomy are necessary to keep the balance between the right to know and the right to be let alone.

주제어