The Dilemma between Freedom of Press and Political Figure’s Reputation: Observing Decisions of Constitutional Court of Taiwan and South Korea and their Influences

In the late 1980s, both Taiwan and South Korea underwent the drastic transformation from the authoritarian regime to the new democracy. Followed the trend of liberalization, the media was desperate to be released from the shackles and started to function as the fourth estate. The media had changed from the watchdog or mouthpiece of the government to the supervisor in the democratic society. Nevertheless, even though the restrictive laws concerning the press gradually faded away, the media faced new sorts of harassment and intervention. As the media fulfilled the duty to criticize and examine the government, the politician used the libel law suit as a counter measure against unwelcomed remarks. The court became the new battle field for the development of freedom of press.

In the end of 20th century, Constitutional Courts of Taiwan and South Korea were coincidentally brought to the case involving the dilemma of political libel at the same time. However, the two courts chose different path to solve the continuous changing question. This article explores the question how these two constitutional court have reacted and drawn the lines in reconciling politicians’ reputation to freedom of the press with community interest since then, and reexamine the influence and effect upon the development of the issue.

This article first recalls the decision of the two constitutional courts and the back ground when they were dealing with the dilemma. Then it analyzes the textual framework on freedom of press and reputation under the constitution in order to realize the route courts were taken. Finally, it concludes by evaluating the effect of the two decisions in the context of Taiwan and South Korea about ten years afterward.