purpose and appropriateness of means are recognized. It is necessary to take action to discourage the online media from enhancing the image of specific candidates in order to assure fairness of online election news reports. The Time Restriction Provisions ban publication on the ‘online media’, not on the website operated by the candidates. And they ban the columns, etc. written by the candidates only ‘for 90 days until the election day.’ The effect of the Time Restriction Provisions comes into force only after the Deliberation Commission decides to prohibit such publication. This suggests that the Time Restriction Provisions conform to both the principle of minimum restrictions and balance of interests and, accordingly, do not infringe upon the Complainant’s freedom of speech. Given the negative aspects of the internet and the strong influences of the online media, it is necessary to address inequality issues of opportunities among candidates that may arise from the media’s publication of columns, etc. written by specific candidates. Concurring Opinion of One Justices The Court opinion, unlike the point made in the dissenting opinion, demonstrates that the Time Restriction Provisions violate the principle against excessive restriction as they uniformly and broadly restrict the Complainant’s freedom of speech. And the Court opinion points out that the Time Restriction Provisions are not appropriate regulations for the online media since they fail to take into account the characteristics of the internet environment. The Time Restriction Provisions impose comprehensive and blanket restrictions on the Complainant’s freedom of speech without specifically examining fairness of the election news or considering the characteristics of the online media and, consequently, violate the principle of minimum restriction. * This translation is provisional and subject to revision. 5