지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This thesis was written for the purpose of researching how it is desirable to standardize hate speech in Korea. There are differences in the way European countries such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom regulate hate speech in the United States, Canada, and Japan. In Germany, France, and Canada, hate speech is punishable under the “Criminal Code”. In addition, the UK and Canada regulate hate speech as part of ‘harassment’ under the Equality Act 2010 and the Canadian Human Rights Act, respectively. Then, in what ways should Korea regulate hate speech in each country in the world? In Korea, where there are defamation of facts, defamation of false facts and insults under the 「Criminal Law」, it is concerned that the restriction of the freedom of expression will be weakened by the 「Criminal Law」.
Also, on December 30, 2021, the Republic of Korea recently submitted the ‘Basic Act on Human Rights Policy’ jointly with the Ministry of Justice and the National Human Rights Commission. However, it is difficult to say that it is desirable to ask if, in the future, provisions related to hate speech can be placed in laws that are fundamental to human rights such as the United Kingdom and Canada. Because, as one study shows that 80% of hate speech can be reduced even if it is left to the platform"s self-regulation, it is desirable that hate speech online go in the direction of self-regulation.
However, offline hate speech regulation is not unnecessary. Even in the United States, where it is predicted that it is almost impossible to regulate hate speech in laws with the nature of the Basic Human Rights Act, offline hate speech is indirectly regulated as part of harassment through various federal and state anti-discrimination laws and precedents. In Korea, as well as the 「Act on the Prevention of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities」, the 「Labor Standards Act」 and 「Basic Education Act」 have provisions against discrimination against various target groups. However, the legislation is insufficient to believe that hate speech can be regulated by this article. In addition, other than labor and education, legislation on anti-discrimination has not been sufficiently prepared in each area such as ‘supply of goods and services’ or ‘enforcement of laws and policies’.
On the other hand, it is most appropriate to set the subject of hate speech related norms as "ethnic, race, and religion" in accordance with the 2011 Special Rapporteur"s Report on the Protection and Promotion of Freedom of Mind and Expression, as Korea ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In addition, regarding the content and effect of a certain expression that can be regulated as hate speech, it is said that ‘insults’, ‘depreciation’, ‘slander’, and ‘hate’ can be placed as the requirements for the content of hate speech. And, among the various ways of regulating the effect of expression, Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights defines ‘discrimination’, ‘hostility’, ‘violence’ is specified. Finally, it concluded that hate speech would be regulated only when negative effects(discrimination, hostility, violence, etc.) in a strict sense can be recognized. ‘political expression’ and ‘remarks for academic, artistic, scientific purposes’ should be an exception to the application of the hate speech regulation clause.
Also, on December 30, 2021, the Republic of Korea recently submitted the ‘Basic Act on Human Rights Policy’ jointly with the Ministry of Justice and the National Human Rights Commission. However, it is difficult to say that it is desirable to ask if, in the future, provisions related to hate speech can be placed in laws that are fundamental to human rights such as the United Kingdom and Canada. Because, as one study shows that 80% of hate speech can be reduced even if it is left to the platform"s self-regulation, it is desirable that hate speech online go in the direction of self-regulation.
However, offline hate speech regulation is not unnecessary. Even in the United States, where it is predicted that it is almost impossible to regulate hate speech in laws with the nature of the Basic Human Rights Act, offline hate speech is indirectly regulated as part of harassment through various federal and state anti-discrimination laws and precedents. In Korea, as well as the 「Act on the Prevention of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities」, the 「Labor Standards Act」 and 「Basic Education Act」 have provisions against discrimination against various target groups. However, the legislation is insufficient to believe that hate speech can be regulated by this article. In addition, other than labor and education, legislation on anti-discrimination has not been sufficiently prepared in each area such as ‘supply of goods and services’ or ‘enforcement of laws and policies’.
On the other hand, it is most appropriate to set the subject of hate speech related norms as "ethnic, race, and religion" in accordance with the 2011 Special Rapporteur"s Report on the Protection and Promotion of Freedom of Mind and Expression, as Korea ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In addition, regarding the content and effect of a certain expression that can be regulated as hate speech, it is said that ‘insults’, ‘depreciation’, ‘slander’, and ‘hate’ can be placed as the requirements for the content of hate speech. And, among the various ways of regulating the effect of expression, Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights defines ‘discrimination’, ‘hostility’, ‘violence’ is specified. Finally, it concluded that hate speech would be regulated only when negative effects(discrimination, hostility, violence, etc.) in a strict sense can be recognized. ‘political expression’ and ‘remarks for academic, artistic, scientific purposes’ should be an exception to the application of the hate speech regulation clause.
목차
국문요약
Ⅰ. 서설
Ⅱ. 혐오표현 논의의 배경 및 중요성
Ⅲ. 혐오표현의 규범적 의미에 대한 각국에서의 정의
Ⅳ. 혐오표현의 성립요건
Ⅴ. 결론 및 시사점
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
혐오표현에 대한 형사법적 대응방안에 관한 소고
한양법학
2024 .05
-
헌법상 혐오표현 규제 가능성과 입법방향
법학논총
2017 .01
-
Report on Hate Speech
[NHRC] 국가인권위원회 발간자료
2020 .01
-
혐오표현 규제에 대한 헌법적 이해
공법연구
2016 .06
-
혐오(hate)에 어떻게 대응할 것인가? - 혐오에 관한 법과 정책 -
법학연구
2019 .05
-
혐오표현의 규제에 대한 인권법적 고찰 - 국제조약상 입법화 의무를 중심으로
헌법논총
2019 .01
-
헤이트 스피치 해소법 제정 이후 일본의 혐오표현 규제동향과 시사점
고려법학
2022 .09
-
온라인 동영상 서비스의 혐오표현 콘텐츠 이용 경험과 규제 인식이 이용과 지속 이용 의도에 미치는 영향
서비스경영학회지
2021 .03
-
일본에서의 혐오표현 규제에 관한 연구
성균관법학
2020 .12
-
혐오표현의 규제: 표현의 자유와 소수자 보호를 위한 규제대안의 모색
법과사회
2015 .01
-
일본에서 온·오프라인의 혐오표현과 그 규제에 관한 연구
유럽헌법연구
2020 .01
-
사회과교육에서 혐오표현 관련 교육에 관한 시론
시민교육연구
2018 .01
-
혐오표현의 이해 및 특성에 대한 고찰: 해외 혐오표현 규정을 중심으로
한국경찰연구
2019 .01
-
일본의 혐오표현 형사규제에 관한 검토 : 헤이트스피치해소법을 중심으로
형사정책연구
2017 .06
-
해외 인권위원회의 혐오표현 대응정책 소개와 시사점
언론과법
2017 .08
-
혐오표현(Hate Speech)에 관한 헌법적 고찰
공법학연구
2015 .08
-
혐오표현에 대한 형사법적 개선방안에 관한 연구
형사정책연구
2021 .06
-
공직선거에서의 혐오표현 - 더 강력한 규제가 필요한가? 더 많은 자유가 필요한가? -
법학연구
2021 .01
-
혐오표현과 표현의 자유
법과 정책연구
2017 .01
-
혐오표현 ―인권침해와 표현의 자유 사이에―
법철학연구
2023 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-151-24-02-088542469