[Reporter’s Notebook] Fundamental Rights vs. Fundamental Rights

"We just have no choice but to endure."

These were the words uttered with a sigh by a cafe owner I met on the 9th of last month at Gwanghwamun Square in Jung-gu, Seoul. On that day, a government condemnation rally, estimated by organizers to have gathered 100,000 people, took place at Gwanghwamun Square. For merchants who cannot leave the square, their livelihood, the noise from the rally is essentially physical violence. In fact, when measuring the rally noise on-site with a sound level meter, 105.7 dB (decibels) was detected. This is a noise level that can cause hearing loss if exposed for more than two hours.

The freedom of assembly and association is not the only fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to pursue happiness is also a fundamental right. Being free from rally noise and enjoying a peaceful daily life is an important basic right of citizens within the scope of the constitutionally guaranteed right to pursue happiness. We must not overlook that merchants who cannot leave Gwanghwamun Square, their livelihood, are suffering from rally noise at levels that cause hearing loss, thus having their right to pursue happiness infringed upon.

Ultimately, the debate over rally noise connects to the issue of how to approach conflicts between citizens' fundamental rights. The political sphere is also interested in the issue of rally noise. However, the ruling and opposition parties have yet to narrow their differences regarding amendments to the "Assembly and Demonstration Act" (Jipsibeop) related to rally noise.

When the government and ruling party moved to revise the Jipsibeop, the opposition and labor groups raised the card of fundamental rights infringement. Their argument is that banning late-night rallies and strengthening rally noise regulations violate the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of assembly and association. While this claim deserves consideration, it is also unacceptable to neglect the real suffering of those who feel discomfort.

While detailed regulations on rally noise have not been established, rally culture is deteriorating. A representative example is noise evasion tactics. These involve exceeding noise regulation limits while avoiding punishment.

In fact, knowing that the police regulate rally noise by measuring the average over 10 minutes, some turn off and on loudspeakers to fluctuate noise levels around the legally allowed decibel limit. Exploiting the rule that sanctions can be imposed if the decibel standard is violated more than three times per hour, some violate twice and rest once. A police officer I met at a rally site said, "Rally organizers sometimes adjust the sound at an expert level to stay on the noise regulation borderline."

As such, current rally noise regulations reveal their limitations. Can the ruling and opposition parties find a compromise that satisfies both the fundamental rights of freedom of assembly and the right to pursue happiness? It is necessary to move beyond merely discussing allowable decibel levels and make efforts to find solutions by finely supplementing regulations, such as adjusting the maximum noise emission according to the type of loudspeaker. Now that a bill to amend the Jipsibeop concerning rally noise has been submitted to the National Assembly, this is the right time for discussion. Rather than opposing it blindly for political reasons, shouldn't we open the door to negotiations on a grand scale?

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