The South Korean Constitutional Court held that Article 53 of the Telecommunications Business Act and Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Telecommunications Business Act were unconstitutional for lack of clarity because they failed to clearly define what was meant by "public peace and order" and "social morals and good customs" and because they were excessively restrictive. The Court reasoned that the terms were such abstract concepts that officials with differing value systems or ethical views would make different judgments about whether a particular expression was harmful to "the public peace and order" or "social morals and good customs" which would have the potential to create a chilling effect for fear of prosecution. Further, it said that the ambiguity and abstract nature of the terms would inevitably result in the regulation of communication that should not be regulated, and lead to the violation of the rule against excessive restriction. The case concerned a student whose community blog account was suspended and his message deleted following his post stating “Exchange of Gunfire in the West Sea, Sloppy Kim Dae-Jung!”