미국헌법상 ＂사로잡힌 청중의 이론＂

One of the First Amendment principles, the captive audience doctrine is that in certain circumstances, when an audience of unwanted or offensive speech is "captive," the government is justified in restricting the ability of the speaker to engage that audience. A "captive audience" is those who cannot reasonably avoid unwanted speech. While the doctrine focused on the conflict between a speaker's right to communicate and a listener's right to privacy as it appeared at first, rercent cases have applied its reasoning to protect interests besides privacy, that is an audience's right to equal protection or right to vote etc.. Although numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions relied on the captive audience doctrine have not consistently explained on the definition of captivity and the burden of unwilling listener's to avoid unwanted messages, perhaps it is clear conclusions that the doctrine is more to be applied to regulate speech when one is viewed as a captive in the home than outside the home or public places and one is probably to be regarded as captive in the situation that the speech is spoken rather than written. This note examines U.S. current case law and shows that the doctrine is riddled with some inconsistency and ambiguity. It also suggests that the dichotomy of "visual and audible" and "in the home and outside home" should be reconsideded to apply the captive audience doctrine. In Korea, perhaps the captive audience doctrine is not discussed in the constitutional theory and cases. In the communication situations of freedom of speech-conflicts between a speaker's right to communicate and a listener's right to privacy in the home, workplace, classroom, campus, streetcar etc., however, Korea has about the same factors as U.S. We should be concerned about these constitutional issues in Korea.