Constitutional Court Upholds Juvenile Sexual Protection Act Banning Online Disclosure of Sex Offenders’ Personal Information Near Residences

Constitutional Court Rules on Ban of Sharing Sex Offender Information Online
Provision Prohibiting Disclosure via Messenger Does Not Violate Constitution
Balance of Interests Upheld Between Public Access and Offenders’ Rights

The Constitutional Court has ruled that the provision of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (Juvenile Sexual Protection Act), which prohibits sharing photos or screenshots of registered sex offenders living nearby via internet messengers or similar means, does not violate the Constitution.

This provision bans the disclosure of sex offenders' personal information through information and communications networks. The Constitutional Court determined that the purpose of this provision is legitimate, as it aims to prevent the widespread dissemination of such information and to limit unnecessary infringements on the dignity and rights of sex offenders.

[Image source=Law Times]

On February 28, the Constitutional Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of Article 55, Paragraph 2 of the Juvenile Sexual Protection Act, in a constitutional complaint (2020Hun-Ma801) filed by an individual identified as A.

A, an attorney and parent of a three-year-old child, received personal information about a sex offender living near their residence via mail from the Minister of Gender Equality and Family in March 2020. Although A wished to disclose this information through an information and communications network, they refrained from doing so after learning it was prohibited under the Juvenile Sexual Protection Act, and subsequently filed a constitutional complaint in June 2020.

A argued, "The provision in question prescribes criminal penalties for violations, which amounts to a blanket ban on sharing publicly available information. It restricts capturing or photographing such information and sharing it with others via internet messengers, chat rooms, or similar means. However, even if such information is shared through private messenger conversations, chat rooms with only a few participants, or internet bulletin boards, it cannot be said that this would significantly hinder the rehabilitation and reintegration of sex offenders or cause serious secondary harm to their families."

However, the Constitutional Court did not accept A's argument. The Court stated, "Anyone in the general public can access sex offenders' personal information on a dedicated website after completing a real-name verification process. In addition, detailed addresses are provided by mail or other means to households with legal guardians of children and juveniles residing in the relevant jurisdiction, as well as to heads of daycare centers and similar parties." The Court continued, "Therefore, it is difficult to argue that access to this information by the public or local residents is severely restricted, or that the purpose of public disclosure of sex offenders' information cannot be achieved unless individuals are allowed to freely disseminate such information."

The Court further explained, "The means of disclosure prohibited under Article 55, Paragraph 2, Item 1 of the Juvenile Sexual Protection Act-namely, newspapers, magazines and other publications, broadcasting, or information and communications networks-are inherently highly disseminative and public, which justifies the need for prohibition. Prohibiting the widespread 'public disclosure' of sex offenders' information through such means cannot be considered an excessive restriction on freedom of expression."

The Court added, "Although individuals like A are restricted from disclosing such information through information and communications networks, the resulting disadvantage is not considered greater than the public interest in limiting the fundamental rights of sex offenders, such as their dignity, to the necessary extent. Therefore, the provision in question maintains a proper balance of legal interests."

Park Suyeon, Law Times Reporter

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.

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