초록

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

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

The balancing of freedom of speech and the protection of personal reputation has been the subject of litigation for many years. The law of defamation of public figures was settled by the United States Supreme Court in 1964 with its landmark holding in New York Times v. Sullivan. The New York Time...

The balancing of freedom of speech and the protection of personal reputation has been the subject of litigation for many years. The law of defamation of public figures was settled by the United States Supreme Court in 1964 with its landmark holding in New York Times v. Sullivan. The New York Times decision only made clear that the term “public official” included elected officials, but not all public employees. The Supreme Court left the task of formulating a more specific definition for later cases, providing its best definition of public official in Rosenblatt. The Supreme Court stated that the designation “public official”, includes, “at the very least … government employees who have or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for, or control over the conduct of governmental affairs.” “Actual malice rule” in the United States is born by supremacy of the freedom of speech; in the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States article 1, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech”. Also majority of judges of supreme court agree with the inviolable freedom of speech. On the other hand, in South of Korea, there are some articles limiting fundamental rights by law (Reservation of Laws Art. 21 ④ ․ Art. 37 ②). It means the freedom of speech can be limited by that articles. So, “Actual malice rule” hards to be applicable intactly in Korea.

주제어