Constitutional Court: Temporary Blocking of Portal Posts Requested for Deletion is Constitutional

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the legal provision allowing portal operators to block online posts upon deletion requests does not violate the Constitution.

On the 4th, the Constitutional Court announced that it upheld the constitutionality of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, which mandates portal operators to temporarily delete posts, by a vote of 6 (constitutional) to 3 (unconstitutional) in a constitutional review filed on the grounds that it infringes on freedom of expression.

Article 44-2, Paragraph 2 of the Information and Communications Network Act requires information and communication service providers to take measures such as deletion or temporary suspension upon receiving a deletion request. Temporary suspension, which blocks access to the post for 30 days, can be applied when disputes over the deletion request are anticipated.

Mr. A posted an article titled "Netizens Silenced... Trying to Cover the Sky with a Palm?" on his blog in 2016, which was subsequently blocked by a portal site. Mr. B posted a blog entry in 2011 titled "Hey, connect the phone. MB's phone politics dozens of times a day," which was blocked by a portal after a church requested deletion citing defamation.

They filed a constitutional complaint regarding the legal provision that served as the basis for the portal's blocking measures. However, the Constitutional Court pointed out, "Even if the operator takes temporary measures, the information can be reposted, and there are various channels for expression, so it cannot be seen as obstructing free public opinion formation." It added, "The procedural requirements and content of the temporary measures are set to minimally restrict freedom of expression," and ruled that "the principle of proportionality was not violated."

On the other hand, Justices Lee Seok-tae, Kim Ki-young, and Moon Hyung-bae dissented, stating, "Providing conditions for operators to take temporary measures whenever a rights infringement claim is made is problematic," and expressed an opinion of unconstitutionality. They argued, "This provision deprives the 'timeliness' of expression, which is the timely expression of one's thoughts or opinions in the internet space, violating the principle of minimal infringement."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.