복면시위의 금지,치벌과 그 한계 = Freedom of Demonstration and Anti-Mask Law

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Recently many people participated in a candlelight rally to protest some policies of new government in Korea. The collision between police and demonstrators occasionally resulted in violence. Especially the mask-wearers were regarded as the toughest trouble-makers. This article analyzes important issues related to the insertion of anti-mask provisions which prohibit wearing masks at a rally with penalty into the Assembly and Demonstration Act. It is not a simple question when, if ever, the government can constitutionally ban public mask-wearing. The supporters insist that the anti-mask law intends to deter violence and enable law enforcement to apprehend wrongdoers. They say the wearing of a mask is presumed to increase a person`s inclination to commit crimes because it lowers the likelihood of apprehension. In this context the concealing one`s face while demonstrating is not constitutionally protected because an individual`s right to free speech must be balanced against the state`s right to regulate conduct in the interest of safety, and its right to regulate conduct that it legitimately considers potentially dangerous. According to them, the law is clearly intended to help police keep the peace, not restrict political protest. The opponents insist that the anti-mask law has alleged violations of free speech, free assembly, and substantive due process rights. They say mask-wearing can itself serve an expressive function, as well as enable speakers who need anonymity to express their beliefs publicly. They focus those who want to avoid the economic and social reprisals that may result if they were identified. They claim imminence of disorder is insufficient by itself as a justification for silencing speakers and the increased possibility of violence cannot alone justify a blanket ban on such demonstration. They warn the possibility of arbitrary exercise of state`s police power in regulating demonstrations. Some suggest that the government may prohibit public mask-wearing when intended to concealing the wearer`s identity while doing violent acts unless the wearer requires the resulting anonymity to exercise fundamental rights or to engage in specified activities where the need for privacy is apparent. Although the government has cited the need for a prophylactic crime-fighting device and its interest in enacting and enforcing the laws, the scope of tests designed to protect anonymous association and expressive conduct shall be the least restrictive means for achieving a compelling government interest.