🚨 Fake News Elimination Law

Today Korean Social News for Beginners | 2025.11.06

0️⃣ Finding Balance Between Freedom of Speech and Information Control

📌 Citizen Groups Warn: "Fake News Law May Limit Freedom of Speech"

💬 Twelve citizen groups, including People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy and Citizens' Coalition for Media Reform, have expressed strong concerns about the Information Network Act amendment, also known as the "Fake News Elimination Law." The bill would require people who spread false or manipulated information online and cause harm to others to pay up to 5 times the actual damages. The ruling party says this is needed to stop the spread of false information on platforms like YouTube. However, citizen groups point out that the concept of "false and manipulated information" is unclear, and even news reporting could be controlled. This could harm freedom of speech. The clause that "assumes intent to harm" is especially criticized because it puts too much responsibility on both journalists and ordinary citizens. While the law says satire and parody are exceptions, these terms are not clearly defined, which may cause confusion when the law is applied.

💡 Summary

• The Fake News Elimination Law is a bill that requires people to pay up to 5 times the damages for spreading false information online.
• The unclear definition of "false and manipulated information" raises concerns about limiting freedom of speech and controlling the press.
• Citizen groups warn that even satire and criticism could be punished, and journalists' work could be limited.

1️⃣ Definition

The Fake News Elimination Law is an amendment to the Information Network Act that punishes people who intentionally spread false or manipulated information online and cause harm to others. It aims to prevent damage from false information and protect victims by changing the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection.

The key part of the bill is that people who spread false information must pay up to 5 times the actual damages as punitive damages. The bill also includes a clause that assumes the person who spread the information intended to cause harm. This means the person who posted the information must prove they did not have bad intentions.

💡 Why is this important?

• Harm to individuals and society from false information online is increasing.
• Finding the balance between freedom of speech and information control is a key challenge for democratic society.
• Unclear application of the law could limit freedom of the press and citizens' critical expression.
• This is an important moment to establish new rules and responsibilities for the digital age.

2️⃣ Main Content and Issues of the Bill

📕 Key Elements of the Fake News Elimination Law

• Punitive damages will be introduced. The main points are:

  • If false information causes harm to someone, the person must pay up to 5 times the actual damages.
  • Previously, only actual damages needed to be paid, but now heavier punishment is possible.
  • The goal is to stop the spread of malicious false information and provide real help to victims.
  • Intent and the connection between intent and harm must be proven for this to apply.

• A clause that "assumes intent to harm" is included. Key features are:

  • The law assumes that people who spread false information intended to cause harm.
  • This reverses responsibility - the person who posted information must prove they did not intend harm.
  • While this reduces the burden on victims to prove intent, it may put too many limits on expression.
  • Journalists and ordinary citizens may find it harder to make legitimate criticism or express opinions.

📕 Problems Raised by Citizen Groups

• The definition of "false and manipulated information" is unclear. Main concerns are:

  • There are no clear standards for what is "false" and what is "manipulated," allowing for arbitrary interpretation.
  • Differences of opinion or interpretation about facts could be judged as false information.
  • The line between satire, parody, critical expression and false information is unclear.
  • There is a risk that the law could be applied in favor of those in power or influential groups during enforcement.

• News reporting could also become subject to control. Main problems are:

  • The bill includes provisions that could make internet news articles subject to control.
  • Factual errors that happen during reporting could be considered malicious false information.
  • News organizations may avoid investigative reporting or critical articles for fear of large damages.
  • Freedom of the press and people's right to know, guaranteed by the Constitution, could be violated.

• Protection for satire and parody is insufficient. Main limitations are:

  • The bill says satire and parody are excluded, but there is no legal definition.
  • It is unclear where satire ends and false information begins.
  • Political satire or socially critical expression could become targets of lawsuits.
  • Freedom of creation and expression using humor could be limited.

💡 Key Issues of the Fake News Elimination Law

1. Unclear Definition: Vague standards for "false and manipulated information" allow arbitrary interpretation
2. Limiting Freedom of Speech: Critical opinions and satire could become subject to punishment
3. Press Control: Including internet articles could limit journalists' reporting activities
4. Shifting Burden of Proof: "Assuming intent to harm" puts excessive burden on information posters
5. Excessive Punishment: Up to 5 times damages could create a chilling effect

3️⃣ Arguments For and Against, and Future Challenges

✅ Arguments Supporting the Bill

• We must prevent serious harm from online false information. Main arguments are:

  • False information spread through platforms like YouTube is damaging people's reputation.
  • Distorted information in politics, economy, and society manipulates public opinion and threatens democracy.
  • Current law makes it difficult to effectively punish those who spread false information.
  • Strong legal measures are needed so victims can get sufficient relief.

• We expect this will stop the spread of malicious information. Expected effects are:

  • Punitive damages will serve as a strong warning against spreading false information.
  • It can eliminate the production and spread of fake news for profit.
  • Information producers will be more careful about fact-checking.
  • The reliability of online spaces will increase and a healthy information ecosystem will be created.

✅ Concerns of Opponents and Alternatives

• There is a risk that freedom of speech will be excessively limited. Main concerns are:

  • Freedom of speech and press guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution could be violated.
  • Critical expression about those in power or the establishment could be limited.
  • It could become even harder for the socially weak or minority opinions to speak out.
  • Diverse expression of opinions, a core value of democratic society, could be restricted.

• More careful law design is needed. Main suggestions are:

  • The concept of "false and manipulated information" must be clearly defined with specific standards.
  • News reporting should be excluded from regulation or separate strict standards should apply.
  • Clear protection rules are needed for satire, parody, and critical opinion expression.
  • The "assuming intent to harm" clause should be removed or burden of proof should be on the plaintiff.
  • The punitive damages multiplier should be lowered or limited to cases where malice is clear.

• Using and improving existing laws should come first. Main alternatives are:

  • Response is possible through existing criminal and civil law systems like defamation and insult laws.
  • Platform operators' self-regulation and fact-checking systems should be strengthened first.
  • People's ability to judge information should be improved through media literacy education.
  • It would be better to improve victim relief procedures like strengthening the right to quick correction requests.

4️⃣ Related Terms Explained

🔎 Freedom of Speech

• Freedom of speech is a basic right that forms the foundation of democratic society.
  • Freedom of speech means the freedom to express and spread thoughts or opinions to others. It is a basic right specified in Article 21 of the Korean Constitution. It is a broad concept that includes freedom of press and publication, and freedom of assembly and association.
  • The scope of protection for freedom of speech is very wide. First, not only factual statements but also opinions and value judgments are protected. Second, political and social criticism and satire are included. Third, artistic creation and academic expression are guaranteed. Fourth, even unpleasant or minority opinions are protected in principle.
  • However, freedom of speech is not absolute and can be limited to protect others' reputation or rights, or public safety. The important thing is that such limitations must be kept to the minimum necessary, and there must be clear legal grounds and legitimate purposes. The Fake News Elimination Law needs to be carefully designed so it does not excessively limit freedom of speech.

🔎 Punitive Damages

• Punitive damages are a system that requires payment beyond actual damages.
  • Punitive damages are a system that orders increased compensation beyond actual damages for a perpetrator's malicious and intentional illegal acts. It has the purpose of punishing the perpetrator and deterring similar acts.
  • In Korea, this has been introduced in a limited way. First, it is partially recognized in special laws like the Subcontract Act and Fair Trade Act. Second, the Personal Information Protection Act allows ordering up to 3 times damages if information is leaked intentionally or through gross negligence. Third, punitive damages are also possible under the Product Liability Act if products are sold while knowing about defects.
  • The Fake News Elimination Law provides for up to 5 times punitive damages, which is stronger than existing laws. Supporters argue it can effectively deter the spread of malicious false information, but opponents worry that excessive punishment could limit all forms of expression. Punitive damages must be applied carefully, and clear proof of malice and the scale of damages is needed.

🔎 Burden of Proof

• Burden of proof is the duty to prove facts in a legal dispute.
  • Burden of proof means the responsibility of a party in a legal dispute to prove facts that are favorable to them with evidence. In principle, the side claiming rights (plaintiff) has the burden of proof.
  • Burden of proof is very important in defamation or false information cases. First, generally the plaintiff claiming harm must prove falsity and damages. Second, to protect freedom of speech, reducing the burden of proof on the defendant (information poster) is a principle of democratic society. Third, in cases involving public figures or public matters, the victim's burden of proof is strengthened even more.
  • The "assuming intent to harm" clause in the Fake News Elimination Law reverses these principles. It creates a structure where the person who posted information must prove they did not have bad intentions. While this makes it easier to provide relief to victims, it puts an excessive burden on information posters and could limit acts of expression. The distribution of burden of proof is a key issue in finding the balance between freedom of speech and protecting rights.

🔎 Freedom of the Press

• Freedom of the press is a core value that supports democracy.
  • Freedom of the press means the freedom of news organizations to gather and report news without interference from the state or power. It is an important part of freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and is closely connected to people's right to know.
  • Freedom of the press is important for these reasons. First, it functions as the "fourth estate" that monitors and criticizes power. Second, it provides the foundation for people to obtain information and make judgments. Third, it activates democratic discussion by delivering diverse opinions and perspectives to society. Fourth, it enables investigative reporting that exposes social injustice and corruption.
  • If the Fake News Elimination Law controls even news reporting, serious problems could arise. A "chilling effect" could appear where news organizations avoid sensitive topics or criticism of power for fear of lawsuits. There is also a risk that factual errors that inevitably occur during reporting could be considered malicious false information. Careful law design is needed that regulates false information without violating freedom of the press.

5️⃣ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Do posts that individuals upload to SNS also fall under the Fake News Elimination Law?

A: If the bill passes, SNS posts by ordinary citizens could also be subject to regulation.

• The Fake News Elimination Law targets "information distributed through information networks," so posts that individuals upload to SNS, blogs, communities, etc. could be included. First, if the information is judged to be "false" or "manipulated," second, it caused actual harm to others, and third, intent to cause harm is assumed, it becomes subject to up to 5 times punitive damages. However, satire and parody are stated to be excluded, but the boundary is unclear, leaving room for controversy.
• Therefore, you need to be more careful when posting information online. Do not carelessly spread information that has not been fact-checked, and be especially careful with content that could violate others' reputation or rights. If you posted wrong information, it is good to quickly correct or delete it. However, the clarity and fairness of law application must be guaranteed so that legitimate criticism or expression of opinions are not excessively restricted.

Q: How do you distinguish between false and manipulated information and simple errors?

A: Malice and intent are key standards for judgment, but actual application could be difficult.

• The bill targets "false and manipulated information" but its definition is not clear, making it difficult to distinguish from simple errors. In principle, first, "false and manipulated information" means cases where content different from facts is intentionally fabricated or manipulated. Second, unintentional errors that occur during reporting or information gathering are difficult to see as false and manipulated information. Third, whether there was "intent to cause harm" becomes an important standard for judgment.
• However, many difficulties are expected in the actual application of the law. Intent and malice are internal psychological states that are difficult to judge from outside. There is also a risk of wrongly judging interpretations about facts or expressions of opinion as false information. The bill has a structure where information posters must prove they did not have bad intentions by "assuming intent to harm," so even simple mistakes could get caught up in legal disputes. Clear standards for judgment and careful application of the law are needed.

Q: Do other countries have similar laws?

A: Some countries have regulations on false information, but they operate carefully to guarantee freedom of speech.

• Regulation of false information is a sensitive issue globally. First, Germany requires SNS platforms to delete illegal content through the "Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG)," but emphasizes platform operators' responsibility rather than direct punitive damages. Second, France allows emergency measures for false information during election periods, but there has been controversy about violating freedom of speech. Third, Singapore's "Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act" allows the government to judge and delete false information, but it has been criticized as authoritarian.
• Democratic advanced countries in the US and Europe generally prioritize freedom of speech and prefer strengthening platforms' self-regulation and fact-checking systems rather than direct regulation. In particular, the US strictly limits government regulation of the press according to the First Amendment. Korea's Fake News Elimination Law is a relatively strong regulatory approach, imposing punitive damages up to 5 times and "assuming intent to harm," so concerns about violating freedom of speech are even greater when viewed against international standards.

Table of Contents

• Go to Guide