A court has ruled that the legal provisions supporting the government's decision to block access to websites selling abortion pills do not violate the constitution.
According to legal sources on September 27, the Administrative Division 4 of the Seoul Administrative Court, led by Judge Kim Young-min, recently dismissed a constitutional review request filed by the Canadian non-profit organization Women on Web International Foundation.
A constitutional review request is a system where a court asks the Constitutional Court to determine whether a law that serves as the basis for a trial violates the constitution.
The court ruled that the power of attorney submitted by Women on Web was not notarized, making it difficult to consider the delegation of authority as valid. It also clarified that even if the plaintiff met the litigation requirements, the law in question could not be deemed unconstitutional.
Women on Web had been providing abortion pills through its website until it was blocked in October 2024 following actions by the Korea Communications Standards Commission (KCSC).
At that time, the KCSC demanded internet service providers to block access and, in February of the following year, requested domain registrars to terminate the website's domain. In response, Women on Web filed an administrative lawsuit in May of last year and also requested a constitutional review.
The contested provision is Article 21, Clause 4 of the former Broadcasting and Communications Commission Act, which allows the review committee to examine and request corrections on matters necessary for fostering sound communication ethics in information distributed via telecommunications.
Women on Web argued that the phrase 'fostering sound communication ethics' violates the constitutional principle of clarity and does not specify essential matters such as the parties subject to correction, thus breaching the principle of legal reserve. They also claimed that the vague standards limit freedom of expression, violating the principle of excessive prohibition.
However, the court systematically refuted Women on Web's arguments. The court stated, "While the concept of 'fostering sound communication ethics' may be somewhat abstract, it signifies the minimum order or moral standards required by our society," adding, "As the content and methods of information distribution diversify and the regulatory targets change rapidly due to technological advancements, the necessity of using such implicit expressions is recognized."
Regarding the violation of the principle of legal reserve, the court explained, "With the advancement of information and communication technology, new types of illegal and harmful information continue to emerge, and existing distribution methods are often modified or abolished. Therefore, it is difficult to specify every detail of the types of reviews and correction requests in the law."
On the issue of the principle of excessive prohibition, the court noted, "While the correction requests may limit freedom of expression to some extent, this is limited to information or distribution methods deemed unhealthy," emphasizing that the KCSC took gradual measures based on the degree of illegality, making it difficult to argue that the private interests being restricted outweigh the public interest.
Earlier, the court also dismissed a case regarding the cancellation of the correction request in a ruling made in June. At that time, the court indicated that the KCSC's blocking measures were not unlawful, stating that providing abortion pills without domestic manufacturing or import approval violates the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and that the website in question falls under 'information for criminal purposes' as defined by the Information and Communications Network Act.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.