Last November, the police made a decision not to forward the case against one of the distributors of a satirical video parodying Yoon Seok-yeol’s ‘conscience confession speech,’ citing lack of evidence. The decision not to forward the case regarding a satirical video that cannot constitute defamation is a natural consequence. Nevertheless, it is known that criminal cases against the producer and some distributors of this video have been forwarded to the prosecution and are still ongoing. Open Net urges the prosecution to swiftly conclude these cases with non-prosecution decisions.
The video is a approximately 45-second short video titled ‘President Yoon Seok-yeol’s Conscience Confession Speech,’ which is a satirical video created by editing together clips from Yoon’s speeches during his presidential campaign to make it appear as if Yoon himself confessed to running an incompetent and corrupt government. In February 2024, the People Power Party filed defamation charges against the video’s producer and distributors, leading to approximately 10 people being booked. Additionally, the Korea Communications Standards Commission blocked the video citing ‘violation of social order (causing social confusion).’ In response, the ‘Network for Freedom of Expression Against Hate and Censorship (abbreviated as Article 21 Network),’ composed of 16 civil society organizations, issued a critical statement and conducted an online campaign to post the video as part of their protest.
The Public Interest and Human Rights Law Center of Lawyers for a Democratic Society and Open Net provided legal support to Mr. A, one of the video distributors, and Mr. A received a decision of no charges from the police last November. Since the video clearly indicates that it is fictionally created content, and considering that any reasonable person with sound social judgment would not believe that President Yoon actually made such statements himself, this video is a satirical expression. Satirical expressions are fictional content that implies the expresser’s opinion or evaluation of the subject, and cannot be viewed as expressions that ‘state specific facts’ about the subject, therefore defamation cannot be established. In other words, the police’s decision not to forward Mr. A’s case is a natural result.
However, it is known that cases against the video’s producer and some distributors have been forwarded to the prosecution and are still ongoing. Some of these individuals reportedly had their homes, mobile phones, and computers searched and seized during the investigation process, and travel bans were imposed on them. This investigation is presumed to be aimed at determining whether they were connected to other political forces and systematically produced and distributed this video, but this cannot be considered anything other than excessive investigation as it is not a factor that affects the establishment of defamation charges. Whether defamation charges are established should be judged based on the ‘expressive act’ and ‘expressive content’ itself, and in this case, it should be judged solely based on the ‘content of the video.’ If the same expressive act was performed, that is, if the same video was distributed, the judgment on the establishment of defamation charges should be the same, and the judgment should not differ based on different treatment of production or the subjective circumstances of the expresser. Therefore, if a decision of no charges was made for the distributor of this video that cannot be considered defamation, it is appropriate to consistently make decisions of no charges and non-prosecution for other producers and distributors as well.
Above all, the situation where citizens become criminal suspects and undergo harsh investigations including search and seizure for this level of presidential satire and political satire is a scene difficult to imagine in a normal democratic country. The reason why decriminalization of defamation has been established as an international human rights standard is precisely because of the danger that the criminal system might be used to judge citizens’ communication to serve the political interests of the ruling party. Although the police fortunately made a decision not to forward Mr. A’s case, irreversible chilling effects have already occurred. Yoon’s anti-constitutional and anti-democratic nature has been revealed to the world through his illegal declaration of martial law and acts of insurrection. The criminal oppression imposed on the media and citizens under the pretext of presidential defamation, and the infringement of freedom of press and expression through sanctions and censorship, were also part of Yoon’s anti-democratic behavior. Investigative agencies should no longer cooperate with such anti-democratic behavior carried out by the Yoon administration, and should swiftly conclude these cases with non-prosecution decisions to quickly free citizens from this government’s unjust criminal oppression.
0 Comments