In this blog post, we will examine the conflict and balance between freedom of expression and public morality, focusing on the restricted screening system.

Introduction: Censorship prohibited by the Constitution, but what is the reality?

The Constitution of the Republic of Korea clearly prohibits censorship. This is a minimum measure to guarantee freedom of the press and publication, which is one of the core values of democracy, and a constitutional defense against arbitrary intervention by state authorities. However, despite this principle, prior censorship has long been practiced in the film industry.
In 1996, the Constitutional Court finally ruled that the system of prior censorship of films was unconstitutional. This was a historic moment that brought the constitutional value of freedom of expression one step closer to reality. However, even after that, freedom of expression in film was not fully restored. Censorship was abolished, but a new form of restriction took its place. The “rating suspension” system was introduced, but it was ruled unconstitutional, and in 2002, the “restricted screening” system was newly implemented. In this chapter, we will explore the boundaries of social values that conflict between freedom of expression and public morality, focusing on the background of the introduction of the restricted screening system, how it operates, and the pros and cons of the system.

The emergence of the restricted screening system and its purpose

The restricted screening system was created following the abolition of prior censorship. The Constitutional Court ruled that while the classification of films was permissible, prohibiting the screening of films or making it impossible to screen them was unconstitutional. As a result, the practice of suspending the classification of films on the grounds that they contained excessive depictions of sex or violence, thereby preventing them from being screened, was abolished.
Against this backdrop, the restricted screening system was introduced, which maintained the rating system for all films but changed the way in which screening venues were restricted based on content. In other words, films that received a restricted screening rating could not be screened in general theaters and could only be screened in “restricted theaters.” The Film Rating Committee defines the restricted screening rating as follows.

“When the content and expression techniques exceed the standards for viewing by persons under 18 years of age and have an excessive negative impact on the sensibilities of the general public or are antisocial in nature.”

This goes beyond simply age restrictions and is based on the intensity of expression and its social acceptability. Although censorship has been abolished legally and institutionally, it is still having a similar effect through “restrictions.”

Restrictions on films with a restricted rating and the reality

Under the current system, films rated “restricted” are subject to various restrictions. First, such films must be screened only in restricted theaters and cannot be screened in general theaters. Second, the production of other video formats, such as videos and DVDs, is prohibited, and it is also illegal to screen, sell, distribute, rent, or provide them for viewing.
Third, there are serious restrictions on advertising and promotion. Current law restricts advertising and promotion of restricted films to restricted theaters only, prohibiting any display outside of restricted theaters.
This effectively prevents the market distribution of films that have been given a restricted rating. From the perspective of film producers, these restrictions dampen their creative spirit and even feel like a violation of their freedom of expression.

Controversy surrounding the restricted screening system

The restricted screening system has been at the center of controversy since its introduction. Broadly speaking, the conflict stems from the clash between two constitutional values: freedom of expression and the protection of public morals.

Opposing view: “Another name for censorship”

Those who oppose the restricted screening system criticize it as “paternalistic interference.” The Constitution guarantees adults the freedom to choose and accept expressions. However, the fact that administrative agencies distinguish between “films that can be viewed freely” and “films that can only be viewed in restricted places and with a sense of unease” can be seen as establishing a hierarchy of expression.
Such judgments rely on vague concepts such as “negative influence on emotions” or “anti-social behavior” without clear criteria, and there is a high risk that they will lead to arbitrary judgments similar to censorship. Furthermore, the state is acting as a guardian over movies that adults can watch, imposing unnecessary interference.
In addition, from the perspective of film producers, such ratings are seen as an inherent violation of freedom of expression and creativity. They argue that films are not mere entertainment but a means of cultural expression, and that the acceptance of a work of expression is ultimately a matter for the audience to decide, not something that can be judged in advance by a state agency based on emotional impact.

Pro: Protecting public morals is the responsibility of the state

On the other hand, those who support the restricted screening system argue that there are certain limits to freedom of expression. They believe that certain restrictions on explicit sexual content are justified because even freedom of the press, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, is subject to public morals and social ethics.
There are three reasons for this position.
First, the criteria for the 18+ rating are too broad, and adult viewers who may be traumatized by explicit sexual content within that category are not protected.
Second, even within the freedom of expression, expressions with low social value can be restricted in terms of place and manner for the protection of public interest. For example, expressions that include violent scenes or sexual depictions should be consumed in limited spaces rather than being indiscriminately exposed to the general public.
Third, advertising expressions are essentially classified as commercial media, and the legal logic is that they are relatively less protected than general expressions in terms of realizing democratic values and shaping personality. Therefore, it is possible to interpret that restricting the advertising of restricted films is not unconstitutional.

Compromise view: The system is constitutional, but its operation may be unconstitutional

On the other hand, there is a compromise view that while the existence of the restricted screening system itself is constitutionally permissible, its operation, especially when combined with the restricted screening theater system under the Film Promotion Act, may contain unconstitutional elements.
According to this view, the current system of restricting advertisements for restricted films to within the restricted theaters not only seriously infringes on the freedom of expression of film producers, but also on the “right to know” of the general public. As a result, even though screenings are explicitly permitted, the system makes it impossible for audiences to even access the films.
This can be interpreted as a double standard that pretends to guarantee freedom of expression while actually blocking channels of expression. Audiences find it difficult to even know that a film they want to see has been restricted, and producers are effectively denied freedom of expression when they have no legal means of reaching their audience.

Conclusion: Freedom of expression and public morality, challenges for achieving balance

The debate surrounding the restricted screening system goes beyond the issue of film ratings and raises fundamental questions about the extent to which modern society should recognize freedom of expression and the criteria for protecting public morality and ethics.
The Constitution prohibits censorship and guarantees freedom of expression, but this is not absolute.
Public safety, morality, and social values must also be respected. The question is whether the boundaries and standards are clear and objective and whether they operate in accordance with the principle of minimal infringement.
There is still much debate as to whether the restricted screening system meets these standards. Various elements of the current system have the potential to infringe on freedom of expression, freedom of creation, and access to information. Therefore, even if the system is maintained, it is urgent to improve and rationalize its operation.
Ultimately, it is necessary to establish a balanced system that guarantees freedom of expression while protecting social values. This is not merely a legal issue, but a challenge related to the cultural maturity of society as a whole, and it is time to reexamine our attitude and philosophy toward the medium of film.