earticle

영어

Around 2016, “fake news” had become a buzzword. This study posited that labeling a phenomenon is significant—whether it is the subject of research or regulation—because labels influence people’s thoughts and solutions regarding the phenomenon. It is impossible to study or regulate something if each person defines it differently; thus, this study explored fake news and disinformation. According to several Korean scholars’ related research since its introduction in Korea, the definition of fake news has three main components: intent to deceive, false facts, and news reporting imitation. However, fake news is now understood beyond its original meaning. In the rise of concerns about fake news, so-called fake news bills have been proposed in Korea. This study first examined what these bills intend to regulate. The study found that there were 27 bills related to fake news and disinformation, and among them, 13 bills defined what needs to be regulated. It was observed that the 20th National Assembly’s proposed fake news bills often referred to what needs to be regulated as “fake news” and emphasized the imitation of news reporting in the term’s definition. In addition, many of the fake news bills included the following definitions: 1) the information was created, produced, and disseminated to enhance political or economic interests; 2) the information was made to deceive the audience; and 3) the information contains false facts. The definition of what the fake news bills intend to regulate seems to reflect the “fake news” definition presented in Korean academic discussions. This study’s author argues that it is no longer necessary nor appropriate to focus on news reporting imitation as one of the core elements of what needs to be regulated. Given the changes in the media environment, courts applying the law would question what form news reporting takes as the information disorder disturbing the online information ecosystem and causing harm has appeared in various forms. The study also examined fake news’ and disinformation’s definitions abroad. Instead of “fake news,” the study found that the European Union and the United Kingdom use the term “disinformation” to call for responses about the complex and multifaceted phenomena. The key conceptual features of disinformation are content falsity and intentional manipulation. In addition, Google has issued a comprehensive report on disinformation and defined it as “deliberate efforts to deceive and mislead using the speed, scale, and technologies of the open web.” Meanwhile, Germany and France have passed new bills with precise definitions of what they regulate: illegal content according to the existing criminal statute in Germany and false information that was spread at a massive scale during the three months before France’s election and violated its authenticity. This study concluded that using the term “disinformation” is more suitable for regulatory discussions rather than “fake news,” but it is not enough to simply refer to fake news as disinformation. The study author argues that disinformation should not be understood as a single thing that can be defined in legislation. Instead, the term “disinformation”—consisting of various expressions that cause different harms—has to be understood as a concept that reminds us that we must cope with new digital manipulations that are so easily done in unimaginable ways and quickly spreading because of technological advancements.

한국어

본 연구는 2016년을 전･후로 해서 전 세계적으로 주목을 끌면서 규제 가 필요한 대상으로 논의되고 있는 가짜뉴스/허위조작정보의 개념을 톺 아보는 것을 그 목적으로 하여, 국･내외의 규제관련 논의에서의 용어사용 및 개념정의의 특징을 비판적으로 검토하였다. 연구결과, 제20대 국회에 서 발의된 가짜뉴스/허위조작정보 관련 법안들은 1) 규제대상을 ‘가짜뉴 스’로 지칭한 경우가 많았고 2) ‘언론보도 형식의 모방’을 핵심 개념 중 하나로 상정했던 것으로 나타났다. 해외 대응안에서는 ‘가짜뉴스’라는 용 어로 관련 문제를 규정하는 것은 더 이상 유효하지 않다는 지적과 함께 ‘내용의 허위’와 ‘고의성’을 핵심개념요소로 하는 ‘허위조작정보 (disinformation)’라는 용어를 사용하면서 복합적이고 다면적인 현상에 대 한 대응방안을 요청하는 경향이 두드러졌다. 아울러 해외에서는 가짜뉴스 /허위조작정보를 법적 규제대상으로 상정할 때는 기존 형법상의 불법정 보(독일의 네트워크법집행법) 혹은 선거의 진정성을 침해하는 거짓정보를 의도적으로 (대량)유포하는 경우(프랑스의 정보조작근절법)로 제한하고 있었다. 본 연구는 규제관련 논의에서 가짜뉴스라는 용어를 사용하는 것 은 부적절하다고 결론짓고 해당 용어의 사용을 중지할 것을 제안한다, 아울러, 본 연구는 가짜뉴스 대신 허위조작정보라는 용어를 사용하는 것이 더 바람직하나, 단순히 가짜뉴스를 허위조작정보로 대체 지칭하는 것만으 로는 충분하지 않고, 허위조작정보가 법적 규제대상으로 설정될 수 있는 단일 실체가 아니라 각기 다른 종류의 해악을 초래하는 다양한 유형의 표현물의 복합체임을 인지함과 동시에 기술의 발전으로 인해 이전에는 상상하지 못했던 방식으로 너무나도 쉽고, 빠르며, 광범위한 방식으로 전 개되고 있는 일련의 디지털 조작에 총체적으로 대응해야 한다는 점을 상 기시키는 용어로 허위조작정보라는 용어를 이해해야 한다고 주장한다.