difficult to ascertain whether information violates any right or where it is anticipated that there will probably be a dispute between interested parties – are problematic in a way that they provide room for information and communications service provider to impose the temporary measure based solely on claims made by a person alleging violation of his/her right. In addition, although it is constitutionally required to practice interest balancing for every conflict of interests between personality rights and the right to freedom of expression in a specific and detailed manner, the Provisions at Issue has already been engaged in balancing of interests at the legislative stage, consequently precluding the possibility for information and communications services provider to practice interest balancing in individual cases of conflict and giving priority to the right to personality over the freedom of expression for a certain period of time. Such aspect strips the “timeliness” of expression – the desire to timely express when discussion on a particular case has grown in size – which results in a grave restriction on the freedom of expression and neglects the constitutional call for a balance in harmoniously guaranteeing the personality rights and the freedom of expression. Therefore, the Provisions at Issue violate the principle of minimum intrusion. Meanwhile, the public interest the Provisions at Issue aim to achieve is to protect individual’s personality rights by preventing the transmission of information that has a possibility or probability to infringe on one’s rights, not information with a clear and present risk of infringing on one’s rights. On the other hand, the private interest limited by the Provisions at Issue is a timely expression of one’s idea or opinion on the internet. As it cannot be predicated that the former interest is absolutely superior to the latter interest, the Provisions at Issue do not pass the balance of interest test as well. As such, the Provisions at Issue violate the principle of minimum restriction and infringe on the freedom of expression, and thus, is against the Constitution. - 136 -