View : 45 Download: 0

美國에 있어서의 放送의 自由와 法的制限

Title
美國에 있어서의 放送의 自由와 法的制限
Other Titles
Freedom of Expression and Public Regulation in Broadcasting in the United States : focused on the Cases of the Supreme Court in U.S.
Authors
朴運姬
Issue Date
1991
Department/Major
대학원 법학과
Publisher
이화여자대학교 대학원
Degree
Master
Advisors
權寧星
Abstract
放送도 言論의 한 분야로서 美國에서는 修正憲法 제 I조의 適用 을 받고 있지만 다른 매체와는 달리 "放送의 성격상의 差異"로 인하여 전반적인 政府의 規縮를 받고 있다. "放送의 성격상의 達異"란 주파수의 稀性,放送技術上적 문제점,旅送의 辯響力과 漫透力 등으로 설명되어지며,이러한 放送의 特殊性은 聯邦通信姿黑齋(FCC)로 하여금 放送許可, 프로그램 縮容規制,放送事業者의 獲嶺判斷,許可更新,許可歌消등의 權眼을 행사하도록 정당화시켜왔다. 뿐만아니라 放送局에 대해서는 晴等時間鏡定,公正性順則,人身攻擊原烈 등의 적극적인 義務를 부과하여 "전파는 모든 사람이 共有하는 公共資源"임을 명백히 하였다. 반사적으로 放送受用者인 청취자와 시청자에게는 전파의 공유자로서 방송을 이용할 수 있는 접근권을 폭넓게 인정함으로서 新聞에서는 否認되는 灰論繼이 방송에서는 강력히 인정되고 있고, 새롭게 彩成되는 들을 權利도 "계몽도어야 할" 原初的인 인간의 기본권으로서 제기되고 있다. 또한 일찍이 언론으로서 인정받지 못하여온 외설문제는 방송의 경우 상스러운 단어의 사용마저 禁止시키고 있다. 이같은 放送政策은 수정헌법 제 1조의 전통적 이론인 "自由로운思想의 시장터"이론에 完全히 배치되는 것으로서,放送出現以後 지금까지 약 반세기동안 신문과 방송의 차이 ,그 차이점에 근거한 차별대우의 정당성문제가 학자들 사이에 많은 論難을 불러일으켜 왔다. 그러나 기준의 인쇄매체와는 달리 방송을 規制하고자한 學者,聯邦通信委眞會,各繼 法院들은 방송에 관한 眼 수정헌법 제 1조의 해석을 달리하는 이른바 "새로운 수정 1조"이론을 창출해내었고,그 결과 방송에 대한 정부의 규제권은 한층 공고하여졌으며,1960년대 들어 활발한 활동을 벌이기 시작한 市民集團의 움직임과 함께 規制가 더욱 强化되자 방송은 점점 더 "획일화""황폐화"되어갔다. 그런 반면 과학기술상의 눈부신 발전은 케이블 TV를 비롯하여 직접방송통신(DBS)과 極超短波電波放送인 MDS(Multipoint Distribution Service)方式,집에서 新聞을 직접 編辨,印刷까지 해낼 수 있는文字多重放送(Teletexte)에 이르기까지 실로 "다채로운 TV시대"를 예고하여 주고 있다. 이같은 변화는 기존의 방송규제이론에 강한 의문을 제기하여 주고 있으며,신문과 방송의 차별이 "차이점없는 구별"이었음을 立證하여주고 있다. 본 논문은 제 1장 서론에 이어 제 2장에서 신문과 방송이 언론기능 수행면에서 전혀 다를바가 없음을 살펴보고,제 3장과 제 4장에서는 미국에서 지금까지 방송에 대하여 가해져온 規脚談令과 規脚汚法을 역사적으로 고찰하여 보았다. 제 5장과 제 6장에서는 放送의義務와 旅送受用者의 權利를 미국연방대법원의 刻例를 中心으로 살펴보고, 제 7장에서는 지금까지 방송규제의 원리로서 작용하여온 각 이론들을 檢討 批刻함과 아울러 다가을 "풍부한 TV시대"에의 대응책을 제시하여 보았다. ;Although Broadcasting is primarily a mode of expression protected by constitutional principles of freedom of expression, Broadcasting is unique among the mass media in America, for it is the only medium subject to direct government regulation and licensing. In view of the scairoity of spectrum, and engineering or technological problems peculier to broadcasting, from its outset, government regulation of broadcasting has been and will continue to be based ostensibly on the public interest, convenience, and necessity. The authority of Government to license radio broadcasting under the Radio Acts of 1912 and 1927 was firmly established in some cases. Congress, aware of the increasing complexity of broadcasting, passed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, so the Federal Communications Commttee(FCC) became responsible for regulating commercial, non-commercial publc television. In licensing new broadcasting facilities or renewing the licenses of existing ones, the FCC is concerned with certain programming considerations. And the Courts have consistently affirmed the desirability of local service programming ; the doctrine of "superior service" ; the prohibition of obscenity, indecenoy and dirty words. The licensing decision is affected substantially by two economic considerations:the effect of competition on incumbent license holders,and the extent to which ownership of broadcasting facilities diversified among different groups or individuals.Procedural guarantees oonstitute another important licensing consideration.In general,legal standing to bring action is not absolute.The Courts have granted the FCC "broad discretion" in settling rules for evidentiary hearing. In addition to its influence on broadcasting through the authority to 1icense,the FCC exercises direct control over programming through the Equal Time,Fairness Doctrines,and Personal Attack rules.The Equal Time provision required broadcasters to provide equal opportunity to all legally qualified candidates for use of its facilities if the station afforded such opportunity to any one candidates.The emphsis of the Fairness Doctrine is on the broadcaster's affirmative responsi bility to cover fairly and adequately issues of public importance.As the Fairness Doctrine has evolved over the past several decades,a series of personal attack rules emerged in response to situations in which individuals or groups were maligned publicly.While A concept of a liberal Right of Access had emerged,the Court determined that not all proposed announcements need be accepted by broadoasters.But with the Right of Access,the Right of Reply and the Right to Hear were established as the rights of viewers and listeners through several continued cases by the Courts. However,in the 1985 Fairness Report,the FCC evaluated the efficacy of the Fairness Doctrine in achieving its regulatory objective and found that the Fairness Doctrine,in operation, "chills speech",and concluded that the Fairness Doctrine,on its face,vio1ates the First Amendment and contravenes the public interest.So the FCC revorked the Fairness Doctrine,at the same tlme,Congress codified the DoctrIne(S.742),President voted the bill and Congress abandoned an effort to revive the Doctrine. In the first place FCC deregulated Radio,echoes the call for deregulation. This is an important time in the history of broadcasting and telecommunications.The technologies that have developed since the Act was written in 1934 are nothing short of mind boggling.The Digital Revolution,fueled by the microprocesser,that can transmit television programming over great distances,that have the potential for direct broadcasting to the home.At some not too distant future,there wi11 be a broadband pipeline into the home with astonishing channel capacity. The past history with regulating telecommunications cannot be undone. But, it doses provide us a laboratory to see what works,what doesn't and why.It is not necessary to respect the mistakes of the past. I can draw three important lessons from the fiftyyears experiance with applying the First Amendment standars to bradcast regulation. First,wherever possible,one obvious way of promoting the values independence is through eliminating unnecessary regulation of telecommunications.Second, it must avoid behavioral regulation in favor of structural regulation.Because behavioral regulation needs governmental involvement.Third,when the government does promote specific programming,in the name of diversity,it must be on guard to prevent abuse,and to insulate such efforts from political pressure.There is a tremendous danger that will unthinkingly apply old bromides about broadoast and new technologies.
Fulltext
Show the fulltext
Appears in Collections:
일반대학원 > 법학과 > Theses_Master
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML


qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

BROWSE