신문의겸영금지 등에 관한 신문법 제15조의 비판적 고찰 ― 헌재 2006.6.29. 2005헌마165등 결정을 중심으로 ―

The Newspaper Act pursued the policy that a newspaper Company should not have the cross-ownership and the multiple-ownership in order to embody the democratic society harmoniously throughout the diversity of opinion. The question was called in that this media policy restricted the newspaper company`freedom of the press. Some newspaper companies had brought a Constitutional Complaint to the Constitutional Court and ultimately is induced to the judgement of the Constitution Court. The Constitution Court issued a decision that the clause of the non cross-ownership is constitutional and the clause of the multiple-ownership is incompatible with the Constitution. I think that this Constitutional decision of the newspaper Act is reasonable. Because of the unconstitutional decision of the Constitutional Court, the newspaper Act should be revised. which position it takes up about the cross-ownership and the multiple-ownership in the revised newspaper bill should be decided in consideration of the change in the media environment, the appearance of the new media and the effect of the economies of scale. I think that the minor newspaper company should be granted a privilege that it is able to have the cross-ownership and the multiple-ownership within the boundary that it interferes with the diversity of opinion. I also think that the Act should let the company have the multiple-ownership to the extent of the enlargement of the diversity of opinion.