20. Case on the Unconstitutionality of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Promotion of
Newspapers, Etc. Prescribing the Employment Requirements for an Online Newspaper
perform occupational functions of journalists who fall short of the
renewed requirements, these provisions are not unconstitutional to the
extent that they must be invalidated for this reason. Therefore, the
Employment Provision and Verification Provisions do not infringe upon
the complainants’ freedom to perform occupational functions by violating
the rule against excessive restriction.
3. Compared to printed newspapers, online newspapers require relatively
less investment in facilities and equipment, and are not limited by page
space. Moreover, distribution costs are low, making it easier to write and
publish articles, while all unspecified persons connected to the internet
are potential readers, articles can be reproduced through blogs or social
network services (SNS), and by being posted on SNS channels, articles
can be continuously preserved and looked up even after they are removed;
this all indicates that online newspapers have a much broader reach and
more far-reaching power than printed ones. Given such characteristics,
the restriction of personnel requirements for online newspapers, unlike
printed newspapers, is a case for reasonable discrimination.
4. Online newspapers have an extremely wide reach; the legislative
purpose of the amended Employment Provision would be overshadowed
if it cannot be applied to the many online newspapers that are already
registered; the number of registered online newspaper companies is rising
sharply, but in tandem with the harms of inaccurate or sensational
reporting, or harmful advertising; remedies provided under the Press
Arbitration Act and the Newspaper Act are merely ex post facto
measures, and thus do not serve as effective remedies for false reports
by online newspapers, which have a wide reach; and the grace period of
one year given to the complainants by the Addenda Provision cannot be
deemed too short to address the circumstantial changes brought about by
the amendment of the Enforcement Decree. In light of this, the Addenda
Provision does not infringe upon the confidence of the complainants.
- 212 -