Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication (KSJCS)
[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 64, No. 3, pp.5-46
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Jun 2020
Received 12 Oct 2019 Revised 29 May 2020 Accepted 01 Jun 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2020.64.3.001

디지털 인격권 침해와 인터넷서비스사업자의 책임에 대한 비교법 연구

박아란**
**한국언론진흥재단 선임연구위원 ahranpark2@gmail.com
Comparative Research on Liability of Internet Service Providers for Infringement of Personal Rights
Ahran Park**
**Senior Researcher, Korea Press Foundation ahranpark2@gmail.com

초록

구글, 페이스북과 같은 글로벌 플랫폼사업자의 영향력이 커지면서 최근 세계 각국에서 플랫폼의 책임을 강하게 묻는 법안들이 발의되고 있다. 특히 가짜뉴스가 세계적 이슈가 되면서 이에 대응하기 위해 플랫폼사업자에게 벌금을 부과하는 법안들이 각국에서 마련되고 있다. 한국도 예외가 아니어서 플랫폼사업자의 책임을 묻는 가짜뉴스 관련 법안이 20여개 이상 발의되었다. 그렇다면 플랫폼사업자에게 이러한 책임을 묻는 것은 타당한 것인가? 만약 타당하다면 어느 정도의 책임을 묻는 것이 합리적인가? 이러한 의문점에서 출발하여 이 연구는 비교법적 측면에서 영국, 미국, 유럽연합의 관련법과 판례를 수집하여 검토하였으며, 한국의 인터넷서비스사업자 관련 법조항과 대표적인 판례를 분석하였다. 인터넷서비스사업자의 책임을 완전면책시킨 미국의 통신품위법과 판례를 비판적으로 검토하는 한편, ‘고지 및 제거’ 시스템을 따르고 있으나 2013년 새로운 명예훼손법 제정을 통해 사업자의 책임을 완화시킨 영국법도 분석하였다. 유럽인권재판소는 혐오표현이나 폭력을 유발하는 표현을 담고 있는 댓글에 대해 뉴스플랫폼 사업자의 책임을 강화하는 판결을 내렸다. 그러나 미디어플랫폼은 디지털 시대의 언론으로서 기능하고 있음을 지적하면서 유럽인권재판소는 플랫폼사업자의 표현의 자유와 피해자의 인격권의 조화를 추구하고 있다. 한국의 경우 정보통신망법 및 대법원 판결에 따라 인터넷서비스사업자의 명예훼손에 대한 불법행위책임을 물었으며, 그 법리는 저작권 등 기타 권리침해 판결에도 영향을 주고 있다. 그러나 이러한 법리가 해외 플랫폼사업자에게는 실효성 있게 적용될 수 없어서 역차별의 문제가 발생하고 있음을 이 연구는 지적하였다. 또한 이 연구는 빠르게 변화하는 디지털 환경에서 패러다임의 전환을 제안하였다. 플랫폼사업자들은 정보의 게이트키퍼로서 더욱 책임감 있게 온라인 환경을 개선해야 하며, 디지털 권리가 기본적 인권으로 인정되는 세계적 추세에 따라 온라인에서의 법률적 이슈도 인권적 측면에서 검토될 것을 제시하였다. 또한 인터넷의 윤리적 기준으로서 투명성(transparency)이 부각될 필요가 있는데, 이러한 투명성은 플랫폼 운영과 온라인 피해구제절차뿐만 아니라 플랫폼이 작동하는 알고리즘에 있어서도 강력하게 요구될 필요가 있다.

Abstract

The Internet has posed a number of challenges to online communication. This research particularly focuses on infringement of personal rights on the Internet, providing comparative perspectives on Internet Service Provider(ISP) liability. It has three research questions: 1) How have personal rights been balanced with freedom of speech in legal context? 2) Why and how have statutory and case laws in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union made ISPs liable for defamation? 3) Why and how have statutory and case laws in South Korea made ISPs liable for invasion of personal rights? First, this paper reviews legal theories related to balancing personal rights with free speech. Then, this research concentrates on ISP liability in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. Since the United States adopted blanket immunity for ISPs under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, freedom of speech has been strongly protected in America. Judicial interpretations of Section 230 have rarely deviated from what Congress had intended. American courts have almost always protected ISPs from both publisher and distributor liabilities as long as the ISPs were not authors or contributors to the libelous materials. But Section 230 has failed to protect individual’s reputation and privacy. As a result, several bills were proposed to revise the law. Although the United Kingdom adopted a “notice and takedown” system for defamation, Section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 allows broader immunity to ISPs. Section 5 defense of the Defamation Act 2013 is novel in English libel law in that it adopts neither blanket immunity nor strict liability for ISPs’ defamation. Meanwhile, the European Court of Human Rights clarified when media platforms are liable for harmful expressions in Delfi and MTE decisions. In South Korea, the Information Network Law requires ISPs to protect user’s reputation and privacy, urging ISPs to delete or block harmful contents on their websites. The Supreme Court made a substantial decision in 2009, ruling that the ISP should be liable for libelous contents if 1) it could monitor and control the contents and 2) it knew or had reason to know about the existence of harmful contents. Case law, however, still needs to clarify what is ISP’s function of monitoring and what is the meaning of “reason to know about the existence of harmful contents”. Highlighting the global struggle to balance free speech and reputation, this research suggests a paradigm shift in the digital age. Dominant media platforms, as information gatekeepers, need to take social responsibility to make the digital world safer. Also, infringement of personal rights on the Internet should be reviewed in the context of human rights, for digital freedom of information and expression is a basic human right. As to the ethics of ISPs, transparency must be reconsidered to make the dispute procedure and algorithm open to the public.

Keywords:

Internet service providers liability, Freedom of digital expression, Online defamation, Notice and takedown system

키워드:

플랫폼사업자, 인터넷 표현의 자유, 명예훼손, 고지 및 제거 시스템

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Institute of Communication Research, Seoul National University. (이 연구는 2020년 서울대학교 언론정보연구소 연구기금의 지원을 받았음.) 이 연구는 2019년 8월 한국언론법학회 세미나에서 발표되었던 논문을 대폭 보완 및 수정한 것입니다. 논문 보완에 도움을 주신 세미나 토론자 및 학술지 심사위원님께 감사드립니다.

References

  • Academics and Civil Society Organizations (2019, July 11). Liability for User-Generated Content Online Principles for Lawmakers. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2992&context=historical
  • Allem, J. (2020, April 8). Social Media Fuels Wave of Coronavirus Misinformation as Users Focus on Popularity, Not Accuracy. Inforrm’s Blog. Retrieved from https://inforrm.org/2020/04/08/social-media-fuels-wave-of-coronavirus-misinformation-as-users-focus-on-popularity-not-accuracy-jon-patrick-allem/#more-45255
  • Benedek, W., & Kettemann, M. (2013). Freedom of Expression and the Internet. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
  • Ghatnekar, S. (2014). Injury by Algorithm: A Look Into Google’s Liability for Defamation Autocompleted Search Suggestions. Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, 33, 171-203.
  • Citron, D. K., & Wittes, B. (2017). The Internet Will Not Break: Denying Bad Samaritans § 230 Immunity. Fordham Law Review, 86, 401-422.
  • European Commission. (2015). Public Consultation on the Regulatory Environment for Platforms, Online Intermediaries and the Collaborative Economy, Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/results-public-consultation-regulatory-environment-platforms-online-intermediaries-data-and
  • Gawer, A. (2016). Online Platforms: Contrasting Perceptions of European Stakeholders. European Commission. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwiivKbU4JPlAhXSFYgKHdU2CVoQFjABegQIARAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.go-e.mcit.gov.cy%2Fmcit%2Ftrade%2Fgo-e.nsf%2FAll%2FC1102FFF9A4BB113C2257FEF0022689A%2F%24file%2FStudyonOnlinePlatforms.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3B5yiO8nBev3oi-GO1NDeS
  • Goldman, E. (2018). An Overview of the United States’ Section 230 Internet Immunity. Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3306737 [https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3306737]
  • Goldman, E. (2013, May 9). UK’s News Defamation Law May Accelerate the Dearth of Anonymous User-generated Content Internationally. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2013/05/09/uks-new-defamation-law-may-accelerate-the-death-of-anonymous-user-generated-content-internationally/#27982d8c388f
  • Google (2018). Transparency Report: Removals under the Network Enforcement Law. Retrieved from https://transparencyreport.google.com/netzdg/youtube?hl=en
  • Helberger, N. (2010). Exposure Plurality as a Policy Goal. Journal of Media Law, 4(1), 65-92. [https://doi.org/10.5235/175776312802483880]
  • Human Rights Council of the United Nations (2012). Resolution on the Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet. Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/845728?ln=en
  • Hwang, S. (2011). A Constitutional Study on Private Censorship. Global Constitution Research, 17(3), 163-191.
  • Hwang, Y., Jeong, J., & Jung, D. (2018). An Analysis of Constitutional Limitations of Political Legislation Bills on Fake News. The Journal of Social Science, 25(2), 101-123. [https://doi.org/10.46415/jss.2018.06.25.2.101]
  • Jeong, S. (2019, July 26). Politicians Want to Change the Internet’s Most Important Law. They Should Read It First. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/opinion/section-230-political-neutrality.html
  • Kim, J. (2012). The Press and Personal Right. Seoul: BakyoungSa.
  • Kim, J. (2015). Internet Information Provider’s Liability for Defamation. Civil Case Analysis (pp. 325-330). Seoul: Bakyoungsa.
  • Kim, S., & Kim, W. (2019, June 14). Great Leap of YouTube. Media Issue. Retrieved from https://www.kpf.or.kr/front/research/issueDetail.do
  • Kosseff, J. (2019). The Twenty-six Words That Created the Internet. New York: Cornell University Press. [https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501735783]
  • Lee, S. (2014). A Study on the Restrictions on Freedom of Expression. Journal of Social Science, 25(4), 473-498. [https://doi.org/10.16881/jss.2014.10.25.4.473]
  • Lobel, O. (2016). The Law of the Platform. Minnesota Law Review, 101, 87-166.
  • Ludbrook, T. (2004). Defamation and the Internet: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going? Entertainment Law Review, 15(6), 173-181.
  • Moore, T., & Tambini, D. (2018). Digital Dominance: The Power of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., & Nielsen, R. K. (2019). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2019. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/risj-review/digital-news-report-2019-out-now
  • Oster, J. (2017). European and International Media Law. Cambrige, UK: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139208116]
  • Park, A. (2016). Algorithm Editing and Internet News Service Provider’s Liability. Press Arbitration, 138, 18-27.
  • Park, A. (2019). A Critical Perspective on Regulating Fake News & Disinformation. Journal of Communication Research, 56(2), 113-155. doi: 10.22174/jcr.2018.55.2.74
  • Park, J. (2012). Internet Service Provider’s Liability - Section 230 of Communication Decency Act in the US from a Comparative law Perspective. Public, Law, 41(2), 511-544.
  • Park, Y. (2008). Defamation Law. Seoul: Hyunamsa.
  • Park, Y. (2013). Freedom of the Press. Seoul: Hyunamsa.
  • Park, Y. (2015). News Portal’s Liability for Illegal Comments of News: Notes for Delfi Decisions. Press Arbitration, 137, 98-111.
  • Press Arbitration Commission (2019). Analysis on Court Decisions related to the Press. Seoul: Press Arbitration Commission.
  • Post, D. (2019, August 9). The Sec. 230 Temperature is Rising. The Volokh Conspiracy. Retrieved from https://reason.com/2019/08/09/the-sec-230-temperature-is-rising, /
  • Rowbottom, J. (2018). Media Law. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing. [https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199677740.003.0021]
  • Shin, C., & Oh, D. (2019, August 21). Determining Critical Korean Fake News in America – It Takes Several Months to Delete. Maeil Business Newspaper. Retrieved from https://www.mk.co.kr/news/business/view/2019/08/649965, /
  • Sung, N. (2017). Constitutional Law. Paju: BubmunSa.
  • Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Republic.com 2.0: Revenge of the Blogs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Taddo, M., & Floridi, L. (2017). New Civic Responsibilities for Online Service Providers. In M. Taddo & L. Floridi (Eds.), The Responsibilities of Online Service Providers (pp. 1-10). Cham, Swiss: Springer International Publishing AG. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47852-4]
  • Tambini, D. (2018). Social Media Power and Election Legitimacy. In T. Moore & D. Tambini (Eds.), Digital Dominance: The Power of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple (pp. 265-293). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Wagner, B. (2018). Free Expression?: Dominant Information Intermediaries as Arbiters of Internet Speech. In T. Moore & D. Tambini (Eds.), Digital Dominance: The Power of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple (pp. 219-240). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Appendix

American Courts Decisions

Cubby, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).

Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2003).

Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008).

Holomazz Technologies v. Microsoft Corp., 2011 WL 865278 (N.D. Cal. 2011).

Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC., 840 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (E.D.Ky. 2012).

Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC., 55 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2014).

Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995 WL 323710 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995).

Schneider v. Amazon.com, 31 P.3d 37 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 329 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998).

American Congress Documents

141 Cong. Rec. H8469-H8470 (daily ed. Aug. 4, 1995).

H.R. 4027, 116th Cong. (2019).

Joint Explanatory Statement of the Congressional Conference Committee, H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, at 194 (1996), reprinted in 142 Cong. Rec. H1078, H1138(Jan. 31, 1996).

S. 1914, 116th Cong. (2019).

British Courts Decisions

Davison v. Habeeb (2001) EWHC 3031 (QB).

Godfrey v. Demon Internet Ltd. (1999) EWHC 244 (QB).

Metropolitan International Schools Ltd. v. Designtechnica Corp. (2009) EWHC 1765 (QB).

European Court of Human Rights Decisions

Axel Springer AG. v. Germany (No. 1), February 7, 2012, Application no. 39954/08

Delfi v. Estonia, June 16, 2015, Application no. 64569/09.

Jersild v. Denmark, September 23, 1994, Application no. 15890/89.

MTE(Magyarországi Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete) & Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary, February 2, 2016, Application no. 22947/13.

Radio France and others v. France, March 30, 2004, Application no. 53984/00.

European Court of Justice Decision

Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos, Mario Costeja Gonzalez, Case No. C-131/12 (2014).

Korean Courts Decisions

Incheon District Court. Decided on 2011. 5. 27. 2010KaHap13691.

Korean Central District Court. Decided on 2019. 8. 21. 2018KaHap583126.

Korean Constitutional Court. Decided on 2012. 5. 31. 2010HunMa88.

Korean Supreme Court. Decided on 2001. 9. 7. 2001Da36801.

Korean Supreme Court. Decided on 2003. 6. 27. 2002Da72194.

Korean Supreme Court. Decided on 2007. 6. 14. 2005Da32999.

Korean Supreme Court. Decided on 2009. 4. 16. 2008Da53812.

Korean Supreme Court. Decided on 2010. 3. 11. 2009Da4343.

Korean Supreme Court. Decided on 2012. 4. 26. 2010Da18709.

Korean Supreme Court. Decided on 2016. 5. 12. 2015Da234985.

Seoul High Court. Decided on 2008. 1. 16. 2006Na92006.

Seoul High Court. Decided on 2015. 1. 30. 2014Na2006128.

Seoul Southern District Court. Decided on 2008. 1. 17. 2007KaHap6186, 2007KaHap11492.

Seoul Southern District Court. Decided on 2015. 8. 17. 2013KaHap107912.

Seoul Southern District Court. Decided on 2019. 6. 18. 2018KaDan226347.

부록Ⅰ. 국내 참고문헌

  • 김선호·김위근 (2019, 6, 14). 유튜브의 대약진(Digital News Report 2019). <Media Issue>. Retrieved from https://www.kpf.or.kr/front/research/issueDetail.do
  • 김재형 (2012). <언론과 인격권>. 서울: 박영사.
  • 김재형 (2015). 인터넷 종합 정보제공자의 명예훼손 책임. <민법판례분석> (325-330쪽). 서울: 박영사.
  • 박아란 (2016). 알고리즘 편집과 인터넷뉴스서비스사업자의 법적 책임. <언론중재>, 통권 138호, 18-27.
  • 박아란 (2019). ‘가짜뉴스’와 온라인 허위정보(disinformation) 규제에 대한 비판적 검토. <언론정보연구>, 56권 2호, 113-155.
  • 박용상 (2008). <명예훼손법>. 서울: 현암사.
  • 박용상 (2013). <언론의 자유>. 서울: 현암사.
  • 박용상 (2015). 위법한 기사댓글에 대한 뉴스포털의 책임: Delfi 판결 평석. <언론중재>, 통권 137호, 98-111.
  • 박정훈 (2012). 인터넷서비스제공자의 관리책임 – 미국의 통신품위법 제230조와 비교법적 관점에서. <공법연구>, 41집 2호, 511-544.
  • 성낙인 (2017). <헌법학>. 파주: 법문사.
  • 신찬옥·오대석 (2019, 8, 21). 韓서 치명적 가짜뉴스 퍼져도 판정은 美서... 삭제까진 수개월. <매일경제>. Retrieved from https://www.mk.co.kr/news/business/view/2019/08/649965, /
  • 언론중재위원회 (2019). <언론관련판결 분석보고서>. 서울: 언론중재위원회.
  • 이승선 (2014). 언론법제와 규제: 표현이 자유 논의의 흐름 및 주요 쟁점을 중심으로. <사회과학연구>, 25권 4호, 473-498.
  • 황성기 (2011). 사적 검열에 관한 헌법학적 연구. <세계헌법연구>, 17권 3호, 163-191.
  • 황용석·정재관·정다운 (2018). 가짜뉴스 관련 국내 입법안 분석과 그 한계 위헌성 여부를 중심으로. <사회과학연구>, 25권 2호, 101-123.

    • 부록Ⅱ. 국내 법원 판결 및 헌법재판소 결정

  • 대법원 선고 2001다36801 판결(2001. 9. 7).
  • 대법원 선고 2002다72194 판결(2003. 6. 27).
  • 대법원 선고 2005다32999 판결(2007. 6. 14).
  • 대법원 선고 2008다53812 전원합의체 판결(2009. 4. 16).
  • 대법원 선고 2009다4343 판결(2010. 3. 11).
  • 대법원 선고 2010다18709 판결(2012. 4. 26).
  • 대법원 선고 2015다234985 판결(2016. 5. 12).
  • 대법원 선고 2016다271608 판결(2019. 2. 28).
  • 서울고등법원 선고 2006나92006 판결(2008. 1. 16).
  • 서울고등법원 선고 2014나2006128 판결(2015. 1. 30).
  • 서울고등법원 선고 2015나204946 판결(2016. 11. 3).
  • 서울남부지방법원 선고 2007가합6186, 2007가합11492 판결(2008. 1. 17).
  • 서울남부지방법원 선고 2013가합107912 판결(2015. 8. 17).
  • 서울남부지방법원 선고 2018가단226347 판결(2019. 6. 18).
  • 서울중앙지방법원 선고 2018가합583126 판결(2019. 8. 21).
  • 인천지방법원 선고 2010가합13691 판결(2011. 5. 27).
  • 인천지방법원 선고 2017가합670 판결(2017. 9. 8).
  • 헌법재판소 선고 97헌마265 결정(1999. 6. 24).
  • 헌법재판소 선고 2010헌마88 전원재판부 결정(2012. 5. 31).