This blog post examines how freedom of the press and the protection of individuals’ portrait rights should be balanced in crime reporting, exploring the ethical responsibilities of the press and their limits.
Crime has become a major subject in news reporting today. This is because it is easy for the media to cover crime, convenient to turn into articles, and, above all, crime reporting attracts viewers’ attention. The media’s commercial goal of securing high ratings with attention-grabbing articles fuels this reporting trend. Moreover, since crime is a topic that consistently captures public interest, the media often presents it in a sensational manner. Such reporting tends to be socially tolerated because it fulfills a public function by satisfying citizens’ right to know about crime. The media’s public interest role is emphasized, and crime reporting becomes established as a means to raise societal awareness.
However, excessive crime-related broadcast reporting can cause various problems. Among these, the infringement of the portrait rights of criminals or criminal suspects can raise legal and ethical issues. Recently, as such infringements have become frequent, criticism regarding the media’s responsibility and role has grown louder. In particular, portrait rights infringement is a serious issue that can severely undermine an individual’s human rights, necessitating social discussion.
Generally, portrait rights encompass both personality rights and property rights. Personality rights refer to the right to prevent others from arbitrarily photographing and publishing one’s face or other physical characteristics that can identify a specific person according to social norms. This is a crucial right protecting personal privacy, and no exceptions apply even in media reporting. Property rights here include the prohibition against using another person’s portrait for commercial gain. Types of portrait right infringement by the press include unauthorized filming and reporting without the subject’s consent, filming and reporting beyond the scope of consent, and filming and reporting using hidden cameras. Such acts can be considered a disregard for an individual’s dignity and may be subject to legal sanctions.
A representative case leading to a Korean court ruling involved a broadcast journalist accompanying police to arrest a university professor caught in the act of illegally providing private tutoring on campus, during which the journalist’s actions infringed on the professor’s portrait rights. This case established an important benchmark for the permissible limits of media reporting, playing a significant role in balancing freedom of the press with individual rights. The court ruled that “entering the practice room without the plaintiff’s consent and conducting on-site coverage constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff’s privacy and portrait rights.” It further stated that freedom of the press, including the freedom of reporting, is recognized only within the scope that does not infringe upon other legal interests. Even though the plaintiff was being arrested in flagrante delicto at the time of the reporting, access to private locations like the plaintiff’s practice room is prohibited without the consent of the investigating authorities. The court ruled that reporting that disregarded this is, in principle, illegal.
This case clearly demonstrates the consequences that can arise when journalistic reporting crosses legal boundaries. In Korea, this case shows the criteria the court uses to judge the conflict between freedom of the press and infringement of portrait rights. Furthermore, this ruling provides a legal basis for determining the extent to which reporting activities in private spaces are permissible. Such rulings will play a crucial role in establishing standards for legal judgments in similar future cases.
Criminal suspects exposed through media coverage not only suffer economic, professional, and familial disadvantages but also experience severe damage to their character, sometimes even leading to suicide. Such severe consequences can arise when the media sensationalizes crime coverage merely to attract viewers. Therefore, as a public institution, the media must respect individuals’ portrait rights and exercise caution to ensure crime reporting adheres to journalistic ethics. The legal and ethical controversies stemming from crime reporting can inflict fatal damage on the credibility of the entire media industry. This signifies that while crime is an alluring subject for media, it can easily backfire. Furthermore, such damage to trust can transcend mere temporary criticism, potentially leading to calls for structural change within the entire media industry. Ultimately, the media’s responsible setting of reporting boundaries becomes an essential element for maintaining public trust.
