Is the new misinformation law a ‘gag order’ or a safeguard? One man wants the Constitutional Court to decide.
An attorney has asked for a review of the constitutionality of an amendment to the communications act, arguing its vague wording threatens free expression.
People walk in front of the Constitutional Court in central Seoul on March 25.NEWS1
Kong Won-jun, a 33-year-old attorney who filed a constitutional challenge against the law punishing distribution of false claims in online spacesJOONGANG ILBO
An attorney filed a constitutional challenge against a newly implemented law penalizing the spread of false information online, arguing that it infringeson the freedom of expression, according to legal sources on Thursday.
Kong Won-jun, an attorney at Dongin Law Group, sought a legal review by the Constitutional Court on Tuesday — when the revised Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection became effective. The revision has since been nicknamed the "July 7 law" after the date it took effect.
The attorney challenged the second subparagraph of the first provision within Article 44 Clause 7, which bans the public distribution of content that incites direct violence or discrimination, or seriously promotes hatred against individuals or groups based on race, nationality, region, sex, disability, age, social status, income level or property status.
“I, as an individual, filed the petition solely out of concern over the law without affiliation with any political party, civic group or my law firm," said Kong. “Much of the language is so vague that it could be interpreted in almost any way, and it has become a ‘gag law’ that makes people censor themselves."
More specifically, he argues that the phrase “information that incites direct violence or discrimination" is unclear because it does not specify whether "incitement" simply means advocating a particular idea or principle or requires specific action.
He also said that — unlike the crime of inciting an insurrection, where the illegal outcome is clearly defined — the recent law provides no definition of what constitutes "discrimination."
Most other Korean laws describe discrimination as imposing disadvantage "without reasonable grounds" or “unfairly." Kong held that ordinary expressions could be deemed illegal if a particular group considers them discriminatory, due to the absence of practical definitions.
The attorney further argued that phrases such as "seriously promotes hatred" and "significantly undermines dignity" are inherently subjective and leave broad room for arbitrary interpretation by those enforcing the law.
People Power Party Rep. Lee Jin-sook holds a press conference to oppose the revised information law at the National Assembly in western Seoul on July 7.NEWS1
He also pointed out that the law does not include the catchall phrase "et cetera" that appears in many other statutes. As a result, the law may not apply to discriminatory content targeting characteristics that are not listed, such as physical appearance, the attorney-plaintiff claimed.
"It is impossible to infer what conduct would violate this law, and it clearly violates the constitutional principle of legal certainty," Kong said in a telephone interview with the JoongAng Ilbo.
"When laws are vague, people shut their mouths because they fear getting on the wrong side of the law. The newly added provision on ‘manipulated false information’ is even more ambiguous and sweeping, which creates even greater problems.”
The main opposition People Power Party has also announced plans to file its own constitutional challenge against the law and introduce new legislation to revise it.
An image of a statue of Justitia, the goddess of justiceKOREA JOONGANG DAILY
Earlier, the Korea Media and Communications Commission (KMCC) said it had designated nine online platform operators subject to the revised law.
The domestic platforms are Naver, Kakao, Daum operator AXZ, Nate and the online forum DC Inside. The foreign platforms are Google, Meta Platforms, X and TikTok. All had at least 1 million daily average users from October to December of last year.
Under the revised law, these providers are required to minimize harm to users caused by the distribution of illegal and manipulated false information.
The government maintains that it is up to the courts to determine whether online content qualifies as manipulated false information.
"Ultimately, the courts will have to decide these cases, and legal standards will become clearer as judicial precedents accumulate," Shin Young-gyu, the head of the consumer policy bureau at KMCC, said. "The government must be cautious because issuing detailed guidelines could amount to excessive intervention."
This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
