As much as freedom of conscience and thought which represent the inner dynamics of human consciousness is guaranteed, if the freedom to externally express such things isn’t, it will be impossible to exert any social influence, or expand the realm of thought by embracing criticism from others. The function of a democratic system can operate properly only when political ideas are created and propagated without constraints. In order for political ideas to specifically mature, the means and opportunities for unrestricted ideas must be assured, and this exactly is where the importance of journalism lies.
Korea unfortunately has a history of enforcing censorship upon film under constitutional law which operated under rules differing from those applied to other mediums such as the press and publishing. This is exemplified in the article stating ‘censorship of films and entertainment for the purpose of defending public morals and social ethics is permissible’ stated in the Third Republic‘s revised Constitution(enacted on Dec. 26th, 1963) in the wake of the May 16th military coup, and the Presidential Emergency Measure in the Fourth Republic’s ‘Yushin Constitution’ enforced up to Oct. 27th, 1980, which gave the president full authority to proclaim laws without National Assembly ratification. Perhaps this kind of dark history explains why film censorship continued raising controversy while haunting filmmakers who should have been putting out creative work free of any particular constraints. Restrictions placed on films were severe as proven in the 1985 statics whereby 81.8% of the total number of films were issued by the Korean Public Performance Ethics Committee(KPPEC) to make corrections, which were basically another way of enforcing censorship upon the films subject to such revisions.
“Film as a vehicle for expressing one’s opinion should be guaranteed the right to be produced and exhibited under the 1st clause of Article 21 of the Constitution, which states the freedom of speech and the press, as well as be used as a means for presenting academic research results. Thus its production and exhibition should also be guaranteed the same rights applied to academic and artistic freedom under the 2nd clause of Article 22 of the Constitution. Censorship prohibited under the 2nd clause of Article 21 of the Constitution is a preventive measure for ideas or opinions prior to public presentation authorized by the government administrative body to screen and choose in advance, what should or should not be eligible for public presentation, or in other words, it is a system that forbids the public presentation of any content matter which fails to obtain permission for public presentation. Due to concerns that if such censorship system becomes permissible, it will not just have great impact on the spiritual state of the general public by infringing upon the originality and creativity of individual artistic activities, but also allow only so-called government-controlled opinion and pro-government public opinion to exist by suppressing in advance any expression that challenges Administrative institutions or the Head of State, the Constitution specifically defines should be prohibited.”
These are the key points to the Oct. 4th, 1996 judgment of unconstitutionality regarding the censorship of independent films, and . It is true that this sentence of unconstitutionality has considerably weakened any censoring act authorized by a public organization. Nevertheless, influences from other non-reviewing boards during the process of filmmaking and film distribution still prevailed on a considerable level.
In 2016, as the Bucheon International Fantastic Film Festival(BIFAN) celebrates its 20th edition, it will commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Constitutional Court’s sentence against film censorship by reintroducing 4 films which were at the center of film censorship turmoil accompanied by a forum on the injustice of film censorship.