Free speech fears grow ahead of Korea's new online content law

A law taking effect in Korea next week will allow courts to impose damages of up to five times the harm caused by "false and manipulated information" spread online, a measure media experts and civic groups warn could chill free speech and open the door to government-influenced censorship.

Starting next Tuesday, an amendment to the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection will introduce the punitive damages scheme, alongside a requirement that large online platforms with more than 1 million daily users remove or block flagged content and take measures to prevent its further circulation.

The amendment, nicknamed the "July 7 Act" after its effective date, was pushed through by the ruling Democratic Party (DP) last December.

Ahead of the law's implementation, posts titled "How to survive July 7" have been spreading across Korean online communities, advising users to avoid making direct assertions and instead employ hedging language such as "allegedly" or "it was claimed." Similar cautionary posts have also appeared on popular parenting forums.

Lee Da-hee, an office worker who says she rarely expresses her political views beyond liking posts on social media platforms such as Threads, said the new law has made her increasingly anxious and uneasy.

"If the government starts regulating what people can write, I am concerned it could eventually start policing even expressions of support," Lee said. "Some ruling party politicians have already called for a school baseball team to be disbanded over the phrase 'Let's go to Starbucks.' If the government gets to decide what counts as hateful speech, people may end up censoring themselves out of fear of crossing the government's line."

Recently, a Seoul-based high school baseball team faced backlash over its chant — 'Let's go to Starbucks' — seen as a reference to Starbucks Korea's controversial 'Tank Day' promotion. The marketing campaign, staged on May 18, the anniversary of the 1980 Gwangju uprising, was accused of mocking the pro-democracy movement that was brutally suppressed by martial law troops under Chun Doo-hwan's military government.

Such concerns have become particularly widespread among people in their 20s and 30s.

"Will posts now be removed based on nothing more than a simple report?” some users have asked on online forums, including FM Korea and DC Inside, out of concern.

A parliamentary petition calling for the repeal of the amendment gathered more than 140,000 signatures in May and June. It surpassed the 50,000 signature threshold required for referral to a parliamentary standing committee. The petition is currently under review by the National Assembly's Science, ICT, Broadcasting and Communications Committee.

The revised law was railroaded by the ruling DP last December.

Besides the new scheme for the five-fold exemplary damage settlement, it also mandates large online platforms with more than 1 million daily users to remove or block such content and take measures to prevent its further circulation.

The revision faced fierce criticism throughout the legislative process.

“It is an online gag law that controls internet portals by restricting public speech,” the opposition People Power Party (PPP) denounced the amendment during committee deliberations.

Even liberal civic groups typically aligned with the DP, including Lawyers for a Democratic Society and the People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, voiced concerns that the law could “undermine public debate.”

Despite those objections, the DP used its parliamentary majority to push the bill through committee and later passed it in a plenary session after ending the opposition's filibuster.

The law was approved by the Cabinet on Dec. 30 last year. It was promulgated on Jan. 6 and is set to take effect after a six-month grace period.

Much of the anxiety stems from the law's vague standards despite the sweeping new penalties it introduces, critics say.

The private fact-checking organizations that receive financial and administrative support from the transparency center under the Korea Media and Communications Commission will determine whether online content constitutes false information.

Civil society groups warn that allowing government-funded organizations to decide what qualifies as misinformation could expose the process to political influence.

"If fact-checking organizations become dependent on government funding, state authorities could abuse their budgetary authority to exert political influence," Kim Dong-chan, policy committee chair at the People's Coalition for Media Reform, said.

“The fact-checking organizations themselves could become entangled in political disputes,” Oh Kyeong-mi, a researcher at Open Net, said.

In a case like the recent "Starbucks incident," in which the ruling and opposition parties sharply disagreed over how to respond, critics say any decision by fact-checking organizations could quickly become another political flashpoint.

The Starbucks incident refers to polarized reactions from rival parties. DP Chief Jung Chung-rae called for a nationwide boycott of the coffee brand, while the PPP contented that simply visiting Starbucks does not equate with hatred. The contrasting view also extended to a six-month punishment handed to the Seoul-based high school baseball team. 

Experts have also warned that the compliance obligations imposed on platform operators could trigger self-censorship.

Large platforms such as Naver, Kakao and Meta Platforms, each with more than 1 million daily users, must promptly remove reported illegal or misleading content, suspend accounts and submit transparency reports.

"To minimize legal risks, platforms are likely to deploy AI-based pre-screening systems," Lee Seong-yeob, a professor at Korea University's Graduate School of Management of Technology, said. "Even lawful criticism of government policies or satire targeting those in power could be filtered out and blocked by defensive moderation systems."

As concerns intensified ahead of the law's implementation, conservative opposition lawmakers stepped up their criticism.

On June 26, PPP Rep. Kim Jae-sub introduced an alternative bill that removes the concept of "false and manipulated information" altogether and limits regulation to clearly defined illegal content. The bill also establishes procedures for users to challenge AI-assisted moderation decisions.

"If the government is allowed to unilaterally determine what counts as false information, the ability to rigorously scrutinize those in power will be paralyzed, and the public sphere will suffer irreversible damage," Kim said.

“Platforms will end up creating a vast 'censorship ecosystem' by filtering out information they deem problematic on their own," independent right-leaning lawmaker Han Dong-hoon said. "The law raises serious constitutional concerns and infringes on freedom of expression. Its implementation should be suspended immediately, and lawmakers should begin revising it."

While experts largely support regulating harmful online content, they say the legislation was enacted too hastily and lacked sufficient safeguards.

"Making major platforms legally responsible for tackling the serious social harm caused by ‘cyber wreckers’ is a step forward,” Yoo Hyun-jae, a communications professor at Sogang University, said.

Cyber wreckers are YouTubers who target specific people to attract viewers and ultimately make money.

"But with Korea's private fact-checking ecosystem already weakened, there is no realistic alternative for handling the enormous volume of verification work,” Prof. Yoo said. “Both parties knew confusion would follow but simply shifted responsibilities.”

Some political experts also warned of the potential ramifications of the law.

"The law carries far-reaching consequences, yet it was passed without even the most basic steps of public consultation or bipartisan agreement,” Yoon Jong-bin, a political science professor of Myongji University, said. "The revised law could easily be exploited to shield those in power from scrutiny and suppress legitimate questions. The passage — without preparations for unintended consequences — will ultimately bring significant social costs."

BY HAN YEONG-IK, PARK JUN-KYU [[email protected]]