표현의 자유와 명예훼손 - 정부정책에 대한 언론보도를 중심으로 -

Matters concerning the government's decision to implement and implement policies and national agencies are always subject to monitoring and criticism of the media and the public, and such monitoring and criticism can only be conducted properly when the freedom of press reports is sufficiently guaranteed. The government or state agencies can not be victims of defamation of character because they are objects of freedom, not the subject of freedom of expression. Therefore, the media reports are not responsible for the media coverage of the government's decision to make matters or matters related to the government's policy decisions or achievements. However, the media can be held accountable for the media coverage of libel or libel of public officials who are involved in the government's decision to influence the government or the government's decision. There is a limit to the press, not the unlimited amount of responsibility. The Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court ruled that the report is not necessarily a libel upon public officials unless the report is regarded as a significant or highly regarded offense, even though the report is not evaluated as a serious or highly indiscreet attack against civil servants. However, the burden of the freedom of expression is problematic, as evidenced by the burden of proving the burden of libel on the victims of defamation of expression in terms of freedom of expression. In the United States, the so-called “theory of actual malice” is being established in the wake of the ruling New York Times ‘ruling that the ruling Grand National Party is guilty of receiving a false accusation of defamation or fraud in the face of a libel suit in the wake of the New York Times. Although the “theory of actual malice” in the United States are largely protective of the freedom of expression, it is problematic to introduce a wide range of voices to Korea in recognition of the widespread criticism of the public. A satire about Park Geun-hye, former president, a painter for the freedom of media reports case that has spread across the Internet, too? Or this issue arose in the debate over whether or not it was libel. Some are legitimate president, claimed that the freedom of expression, but the other side, saying the defamation of critics also existed. Thus, “Freedom of expression” and “defamation” are one of the perennial controversies in connection with media coverage. However, there is a slight difference in the case of general libel. In the ‘official’ of the president of the Parties to the damage. It is highly likely that the public is more likely to be criticized and accepted than the public. Still, it is necessary for public officials to institute a new rule of defamation against public officials, allowing civil servants to openly criticize public officials for defamation of character. The freedom of expression is the means of realizing the social values of the self and the self, as a means of ensuring that the individual is engaged in the principle of self fulfillment, as a means of achieving his own identity, as a means of achieving his own identity, as a means of achieving his own identity, as a means of achieving his own identity. It is imperative that the freedom of expression of public officials and the government to guarantee free criticism of government agencies and government officials should not be the sole cause of freedom of media reports. Therefore, if the nation accepts “the theory of actual malice” in the U.S. but limits the burden of defamation and burden to civil servants, the media outlets will be able to freely monitor government policies and public officials through media reports. It is expected to reduce the government's oversight of government policies and expand the right to know and freedom of expression.