This is the abstract of an article on the Comparative Analysis of Youth Protection on the Internet in Korea and the United States, which was published in Kyung Hee Law Journal, June 2008.

The Internet has become an inseparable part of the life of today's youth. Users can access the Internet regardless of their age.
More often than not, minors are exposed to sexually explicit or violent materials through text, images, online games, etc. Recently, youngsters imitating such content on the Internet have raised serious social issues in Korea.

To protect minors from accidental exposure to sexually explicit materials on the Internet, it is the best policy to block content harmful to minors. In the United States, Congress established the Communications Decency Act (CDA) in Title V of the Telecommuncations Act of 1996.
Two provisions of the CDA were challenged by civic groups, however, because the CDA lacked the precision that the First Amendment requires when a statute regulates the content of speech. Although the government has a compelling interest in protecting children from potentially harmful materials, the CDA set out to pursue that interest by suppressing constitutionally protected adult speech.

In place of the CDA, Congress enacted the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), of which enforcement was halted because it failed to satisfy a strict scrutiny test under the First Amendment.
A series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions held that the compelling government interest of protecting youth could be inferior to the fundamental right of free speech.

In Korea, obscene and violent content on the Internet is strictly regulated by the government. In principle, the Penal Code applies to the dissemination of obscene content via the Internet.
For example, the recently established "Act concerning the Punishment of Sexual Violence Crime and the Protection of Its Victim" provides that anyone, who conveys via the communications networks texts, images or other items that arouse disgrace or disgust for the purpose of stimulation or satisfaction of sexual desire, shall be subject to imprisonment of less than one year or a fine up to three million won (equivalent to U$3000).

Next, the "Youth Protection Act", which defines a minor as a person under 19 years old including all high school students, prohibits any material harmful to youth from reaching minors without appropriate limitations such as age verification.

If the violator uses the broadband networks, the "Act on the Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Data Protection" applies. This Act allows information service providers to take responsibility for the watchful management of their web sites.

If the protection of youth cannot be fully attained by law, it is advisable to pursue a technological solution which requires less cost and effort. For youngsters, it is up to their parents as well as schools, communities and the state to lead them in the right direction regarding the proper use of the Internet.

With the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), filtering technologies turned out to be a plausible, least restrictive means of the protection of minors on the Internet. But we should pay keen attention to the increasing power of new technologies.

To tackle this complicated policy issue - how to protect minors in the cyberspace, we may follow the three-step algorithm suggested by Professor Jerry Kang at the UCLA School of Law. First, identify options that might solve the problem - legislative advancement, technological solution or socio-cultural education of the Internet users.

Second, assess the efficacy of these options through cost and benefit analysis. Generally speaking, the socio-cultural enlightenment seems superior in view of expected benefits to technological solutions or advanced legislation, while its order could be reversed in terms of cost. The policy-makers used to prefer the legislative measures to other alternatives on account of the cost and time saving merit.

Third, it is wise to make some constitutional or legal value judgment on the basis of factual assessments. It could prevent the unexpected entanglement of unconstitutionality or illegality. Also, it should be noted that decision-makers differ from their standpoint toward facts and values which they represent.