혐오표현(Hate Speech)에 관한 헌법적 고찰

Freedom of expression is an essential rights of a citizen in a democratic society. We can reflect on our thoughts in the country's decision-making and self-realization through freedom of expression Recently, the development of democracy and communication technology has become diverse ways to actively express their opinion to others. In particular, Korea has highly developed cyberspace and SNS. Various methods and opportunities so you can not compare the past is causative of the side effects that may infringe upon the rights of others. For example, it blamed the other specific groups or individuals listed in the Internet space, or to incite hatred against them. Discussion of the regulation of hate speech also begins in this background. Hate speech can be defined as a representation that incite hatred or violence against a group distinct from race, gender, nationality, religion, disability and so on. Hate speech gives a negative impact on our society as a whole, as well as a particular individual who suffer form damage. Hate speech that give people to an unrecoverable damage and causes of conflict and division in society. Regulation of hate speech is needed because there is discrimination against a person. This is contrary to the universal values of human. However, the current law does not has an effective way to regulate hate speech. For example, Criminal Law regulate only libel and contempt and National Human Rights Commission Act is to prohibit only some discrimination. In the process of regulating hate speech, the debate is likely to occur because of the possibility that freedom of expression is infringed. In the past, there was a law that was a problem for reasons of infringement of freedom of expression in Korea. Therefore, the aim of this paper is try to find a way to regulate hate speech while minimizing the limitations of the constitutional freedom of expression. For the results obtained, Let's take a look at the hate speech regulation and case law in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada. In conclusion, I propose that the social risk of hate speech is regulated by the criminal law and the individual damage of hate speech is recovered by the National Human Rights Commission.