언론의 명예훼손행위에 대한 민사구제책으로서 증액배상제도의 도입 및 그에 따른 법적 쟁점: 미국 법제를 중심으로

초록

According to Article 30 bis of the “A Bill Revising the Act on Media Arbitration and Damage Remedy, etc.” (Bill No. 2200058) (hereinafter referred to as the “Media Arbitration Bill(2024)”), introduced by Representative Jeong Cheong-Rae on May 31, 2024, it prescribes as follows: “Article 30 bis (Liability for Damages) (1) The court may order damages not exceeding three times the amount of damages under Article 30 paragraph 1 if it is determined that a media organization has maliciously violated the right to personality under Article 30 paragraph 2. (2) In paragraph (1), the term “maliciously” means making a distorted report with the intention of causing extreme harm to the victim with the knowledge that it is false.” The Media Arbitration Bill (2024) limits the scope of the increased damages to infringement of personality rights by the media, and the requirements for damages are strictly limited to cases where it is clear that the distorted report was made with the intention of causing extreme harm to the victim with knowledge of the false facts, and the scope of damages is also limited to three times the actual damages. This Article analyzes the punitive damages system for infringement of personal rights of journalists under U.S. law from a comparative law perspective. First, this Article examines the punitive damages system for defamation, which is a representative type of violation of personal rights. It defines defamation, explains the history of the damages system for defamation, and examines the punitive damages system for defamation in detail. In particular, it examines the constitutionality of the punitive damages system for defamation. Then, it analyzes the punitive damages system for intentional infringement of feelings. Afterwards, the system of punitive damages for invasion of privacy is analyzed. Based on the foregoing, this Article will analyze the Media Arbitration Bill (2024) from a comparative legal perspective and draw implications. Allowing increased damages in cases of defamation is unlikely to be unconstitutional if it seeks full recovery. However, it is necessary to be more cautious when faced with the extent to which the increased compensation exceeds the full compensation. Therefore, more accurate statistics are needed to support the Media Arbitration Bill (2024) allowing triple compensation in the media sector.

키워드