Open Net Korea plans to submit its opinion to the National Assembly opposing the proposed amendment to the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Bill No. 2219096), introduced by Representative Lee Hoon ki.
The proposed amendment would designate so-called "mocking and hate information" as illegal online content, criminalize its distribution, and authorize the Korea Communications Standards Commission (KCSC) to order its removal and block access to such content. Although the bill is presented as a measure to address hate speech, it poses a serious risk of unduly restricting freedom of expression while expanding administrative censorship.
The bill identifies "mocking" and "hate" as categories of prohibited expression, yet these concepts are overly vague and lack clear legal boundaries. Whether a particular expression constitutes criticism, satire, or mockery is often subject to differing social interpretations. Nevertheless, the bill fails to provide sufficiently clear standards. Laws restricting expression must be drafted with enough precision to enable individuals to foresee what conduct is prohibited. This bill, however, defines the scope of prohibited speech so broadly that it raises serious concerns under the constitutional principle of legal certainty.
Strong criticism of public officials, political parties, government policies, and social movements frequently takes the form of satire or ridicule. If enacted, the bill could therefore encompass a wide range of legitimate political expression. In a democratic society, even speech that is offensive or provocative deserves broad protection, and the government should not be empowered to determine the acceptability of expression based on its content.
The bill would also authorize the Korea Communications Standards Commission to order the removal of, or block access to, content deemed to constitute "mocking and hate information." As a matter of principle, however, the legality of expression should be determined through careful judicial review by an independent court. Allowing an administrative body to remove speech and restrict its dissemination not only risks violating the principle of proportionality but also significantly expands the danger of administrative censorship.
Hatred and discrimination against minority groups are undoubtedly serious social problems. However, the appropriate response is not broad speech regulation or criminal punishment based on vague legal concepts. Hate and discrimination should instead be addressed through democratic and proportionate measures, including education, counterspeech, support for affected communities, and comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation.
Despite its stated objective of combating hate speech, the proposed amendment would impose excessive restrictions on freedom of expression and grant sweeping censorship powers to an administrative agency. Open Net therefore urges the National Assembly to withdraw the bill and continue public discussion on addressing hate and discrimination in a manner that fully respects both freedom of expression and the right to equality.
0 Comments