JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
A Study on national responsibility to foster cultural contents and legal principles of vulgarity regulation
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
A Study on national responsibility to foster cultural contents and legal principles of vulgarity regulation
Cho, man-hyeong;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Constitution declares culture is area that without any interference from the state space, and so creates each person creative energy. It is a typical movie in culture. The film will be referred to as an important expression form as well as high value-added industries of cultural creativity of ethnic communities. Intervention of the state is necessary that by competing mechanisms of diverse opinions and ideas caused harm. State intervention is only to be operated at a minimum. The vulgarity causes young people have impulsive tendencies and affects adults adversely on on issues, regulation is possible for children and youth protection. This paper aims to suggest a new legislative measure about the legal principles of vulgarity regulation to solve this kind of problem efficiently. Some standard allowed vulgarity regulation on the principles of control.
 Keywords
cultural contents;national responsibility;the legal principles of vulgarity regulation;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Kim, young su, "The Provisional Government of Korea and legitimate government", The Korea the constitutional law, p. 65, 1995,

2.
Ru, si jo, "The Republic of Korea on constitutional law", The study of public law (5), The Korea comparison constitutional law, p. 138, 2005.

3.
Kang koyoung gun, "Korea on constitutional law", bubmunsa, p. 193, 1998

4.
Ru, si jo, "The Republic of Korea on constitutional law", The study of public law (5), The Korea comparison constitutional law, p. 138, 2005.

5.
Lee bu ha, " Nation and the fundamental rights of a nation", International constitutional law", world constitutional law study (14), p. 187, 2008.

6.
Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972).

7.
John E. Nowak/RonaldD. Rotunda, ConstitutionalLaw (6th ed. St. Paul/Minnesota: West Group, 2000), p.1080.

8.
Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507 (1948).

9.
Fortwayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46 (1989).

10.
Strom berg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931) "Any person who displays a red flag, banner or badge or any flag, badge, banner, or device of any color or form whatever in any public place or in any meeting place or public assembly, or from or on any house, building or window as a sign, symbol or emblem of opposition to organized government or as an invitation or stimulus to anarchistic action or as an aid to propaganda that is of a seditious character is guilty of a felony." 283 U.S. 359, 361 (1931).

11.
413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973).

12.
Interstate Circuit v. Dallas, 390 U.S. 676 (1968) "'Not suitable for young persons' means: (1) Describing or portraying brutality, criminal violence or depravity in such a manner as to be, in the judgment of the Board, likely to incite or encourage crime or delinquency on the part of young persons; or (2) Describing or portraying nudity beyond the customary limits of candor in the community, or sexual promiscuity or extra-marital or abnormal sexual relations in such a manner as to be, in the judgment of the Board, likely to incite or encourage delinquency or sexual promiscuity on the part of young persons. 390 U.S. 676, 681 (1968)."

13.
Amsterdam, A. G. (1960), The Void for Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court, U. of Pennsylvania Law Review, 109, 67-116. crossref(new window)

14.
Goldsmith, Andrew E. (2002-2003). Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court, Revisited. American Journal of Criminal Law, 30, 279-313.

15.
Hadfield, Gillian K. (1994), Weighing the Value of Vagueness: An Economic Perspective on Precision in the Law, California Law Review, 82, 54-554.

16.
Jeffries Jr., J. C. (1985). Legality, Vagueness, and the Construction of Penal Statutes. Virginia Law Review, 71, 189-245. crossref(new window)

17.
Waldron, J. (1994). Vagueness in law and language: Some philosophical issues. California Law Review, 82, 509-540. crossref(new window)

18.
Wright, Robert H. (2004-2005). Today's Scandal Be Tomorrow's Vogue: Why Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act Is Unconstitutionally Void for Vagueness. Howard Law Journal, 48, 659-684

19.
Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15, 24(1973)

20.
413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973).