The Democratic Party of Korea is pursuing a new law imposing liability on internet platforms for so-called “false or manipulated information,” calling it a “Korean-style Digital Services Act (DSA).” This move is justified by citing the EU’s adoption of the DSA after disinformation influenced the 2016 Trump election and the 2021 U.S. Capitol attack. However, Open Net urges that legislation first be grounded in a correct understanding of the DSA, which is built upon the international human rights principle of intermediary liability limitations.
The original DSA, like the U.S. DMCA, developed from a compromise 25 years ago: instead of forcing platforms to police all illegal content (which risked state censorship and over-removal), both the U.S. and EU adopted systems that limited platform liability if they acted only on content they became aware of. The DMCA’s notice-and-takedown procedure proved relatively successful, enabling large-scale removal of infringing materials while still allowing users to file counter-notices for restoration. This process balanced enforcement with free expression, making intermediary liability limitations a recognized international human rights standard (e.g., the 2015 Manila Principles).
The EU’s 2022 DSA extends this framework by specifying due diligence obligations for platforms across all types of illegal content. Importantly, both U.S. and EU systems exclude government bodies from direct involvement in deciding what to remove, relying instead on courts when necessary.
By contrast, Korea’s current law lacks proper immunity provisions for intermediaries. Platforms must comply with takedown requests but are not required to restore content upon user appeal, resulting in mass deletion of lawful content each year. A “Korean-style DSA” must align with international human rights standards by incentivizing voluntary platform enforcement, not mandating overbroad censorship.
The greatest concern is that the proposed Korean law goes beyond “illegal content” to include vaguely defined “false or manipulated information.” The EU DSA covers only illegal content. In 2010, the Korean Constitutional Court ruled that punishing the spread of “false facts” is unconstitutional due to vagueness, and UN human rights bodies have repeatedly stressed that restricting speech solely for being “false” violates human rights. So-called “false rumor” laws during the Yushin regime show how such provisions can suppress dissent. Recent cases, like Indonesia, demonstrate how laws against disinformation are used to repress protest movements.
If the Korean government intends to create a “Korean version of the DSA,” it must faithfully uphold international principles of intermediary liability and resist dangerous expansions into “false information.” Otherwise, it risks repeating past authoritarian abuses under the guise of regulating disinformation.
0 Comments