불법 도청정보의 언론보도에 대한 헌법적 평가 -미국의 Bartnicki v. Vopper 판결에 대한 분석-

This paper examines whether the media’s disclosure of content obtained through illegal wiretapping—specifically private conversations—can be constitutionally protected under the freedom of expression. The focus lies on the constitutional conflict between the protection of communication privacy and the freedom of the press, particularly in the context of increasing risks to privacy posed by advances in information technology. The analysis centers on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper and the Korean Constitutional Court's ruling in 2009Hun-Ba42, with the goal of evaluating how each jurisdiction resolves tensions between conflicting constitutional values. The U.S. Supreme Court held that when the press is not involved in the act of interception and the disclosed content concerns a matter of public interest, third-party disclosure is protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In contrast, the Korean Constitutional Court upheld the constitutionality of a statutory provision prohibiting such disclosures, reasoning that even in cases involving public interest, revealing illegally intercepted content could violate the constitutional value of protecting private conversations. These diverging outcomes reveal fundamentally different approaches: the U.S. prioritizes press freedom, while Korea gives greater weight to communication privacy. This paper concludes by discussing the normative implications of these judgments and proposes interpretive and legislative directions for achieving a balanced reconciliation of competing constitutional interests.