🚨 Press Arbitration Act Amendment

Today Korean Social News for Beginners | 2025.11.18

0️⃣ Strengthening Regulations on False Reports and Freedom of Expression Concerns

📌 Press Arbitration Act Amendment Pushes Forward Alongside 'False Information Prevention Act'... Concerns About Freedom of Expression

💬 Representative Roh Jong-myeon from the Democratic Party proposed an amendment to the "Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies for Damage Caused by Press Reports (Press Arbitration Act)." The amendment introduces new concepts of false reports and false-fabricated reports, and creates a responsibility for media outlets to prove the truthfulness of their reports. It also allows courts to determine compensation up to 50 million won without requiring victims to provide specific proof of damages. The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism can impose fines up to 1 billion won on media outlets that repeatedly publish false-fabricated reports. Supporters argue this strengthens victim protection, but the media industry strongly opposes it, warning that it could restrict protection of sources and investigative reporting activities, and weaken the power-monitoring function.

💡 Summary

• The Press Arbitration Act amendment introduces concepts of false reports and false-fabricated reports and strengthens media outlets' burden of proof.
• Victims can receive compensation up to 50 million won without proving damages, and fines are imposed for repeated false reports.
• The key issue is balancing victim protection and potential restriction of press freedom between freedom of expression and responsibility.

1️⃣ Definition

The Press Arbitration Act Amendment means a legal amendment that introduces concepts of false reports and false-fabricated reports to remedy damage caused by press reports and strengthen media accountability, establishing a burden of proof shift for media outlets and a new penalty system. The official name is "Partial Amendment to the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies for Damage Caused by Press Reports."

The current Press Arbitration Act allows individuals or organizations harmed by press reports to request correction reports, rebuttal reports, and damage compensation through the Press Arbitration Commission. The amendment goes further by clearly defining false reports and creating a structure where reports are recognized as false if media outlets cannot prove their truthfulness. It also aims to increase media accountability by reducing victims' burden of proof and strengthening penalties.

💡 Why Is This Important?

• It can quickly remedy damage caused by press reports.
• It can prevent the spread of false information and increase media credibility.
• It is an important bill to find a balance between press freedom and protection of individual reputation.
• It can affect the press's power-monitoring function and reporting activities.

2️⃣ Main Contents and Issues of the Amendment

📕 Introduction of False Reports and False-Fabricated Reports Concepts

• The definition of false reports has been newly established. Main contents are as follows:

  • The amendment defines false reports as "articles containing false facts or information with distorted meaning."
  • False-fabricated reports are defined as "false reports that clearly harm others."
  • This is a measure to distinguish between simple factual errors and malicious false information.
  • However, the standards for judging "false" and "meaning distortion" are unclear, leaving room for arbitrary interpretation.

• Ambiguity in standards for judging false reports is pointed out as a problem. Main concerns are as follows:

  • Interpretations of facts or expressions of opinion may also be classified as false reports.
  • Partial errors that inevitably occur during investigative reporting may be considered false reports.
  • Critical reporting on those in power or public figures may be restricted.
  • A phenomenon of "self-censorship" where media outlets only choose safe reporting may appear.

📕 Burden of Proof Shift and Presumed Compensation System

• The structure has changed so that media outlets must prove the truthfulness of reports. Main changes are as follows:

  • Previously, victims had to prove that reports were false.
  • The amendment shifts the burden of proof so media outlets must prove reports are not false.
  • If media outlets cannot prove truthfulness, reports are recognized as false.
  • This makes it easier to remedy victims but may impose excessive burdens on media outlets.

• A presumed compensation system has been newly established. Main contents are as follows:

  • Victims do not need to specifically prove the amount of damages.
  • Courts can calculate presumed compensation up to 50 million won considering the nature of the report and scope of damage.
  • It reduces victims' burden of proof and enables quick remedies.
  • However, unclear standards for calculating compensation may increase legal disputes.

📕 Penalty System and Concerns About Press Freedom Violations

• Fines are imposed for repeated false-fabricated reports. Main contents are as follows:

  • The Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism can impose fines up to 1 billion won on media outlets that repeatedly publish false-fabricated reports.
  • The standard for "repeated" is not specified in the bill, leaving room for interpretation.
  • Unclear procedures and standards for imposing fines raise concerns about arbitrary judgment.
  • Media outlets can file administrative lawsuits against the imposition of fines.

• Concerns about excessive government intervention are raised. Main concerns are as follows:

  • Giving the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism the authority to impose fines may become a tool for government control of the media.
  • Media outlets critical of power may be targeted.
  • The independence and autonomy of the press may be violated.
  • There are criticisms that it may excessively restrict press freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.

💡 Main Issues of the Press Arbitration Act Amendment

1. Ambiguous definitions: Arbitrary interpretation possible due to unclear standards for false reports and false-fabricated reports
2. Burden of proof shift: Concerns about restriction of reporting activities due to excessive burden on media outlets
3. Presumed compensation: Decreased legal predictability due to lack of clear calculation standards
4. Penalty system: Possibility of excessive government intervention and media control
5. Freedom of expression: Concerns about weakening of power monitoring and investigative reporting functions

3️⃣ Pros and Cons and Reasonable Improvement Directions

✅ Position of Amendment Supporters

• It can strengthen victim remedies. Main arguments are as follows:

  • Current law makes it difficult to sufficiently remedy damage caused by press reports.
  • It is realistically very difficult for victims to prove damages.
  • The presumed compensation system enables quick and substantial remedies.
  • It can protect individuals and small business owners who suffered defamation.

• It can increase media accountability. Main expected effects are as follows:

  • Media outlets will verify facts more thoroughly before reporting.
  • It can prevent the spread of false information and increase media credibility.
  • The penalty system serves as a strong warning against malicious false reports.
  • It is a balanced system that emphasizes responsibility along with press freedom.

✅ Concerns of Amendment Opponents and Alternatives

• There is a risk of excessive restriction of freedom of expression. Main concerns are as follows:

  • Press and publication freedom guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution may be violated.
  • Critical reporting on those in power or public figures may be restricted.
  • Investigative and in-depth reporting activities may be greatly constrained.
  • The press's power-monitoring function may weaken and democracy may regress.

• Problems with burden of proof shift should be improved. Main suggestions are as follows:

  • Victims' burden of proof should be strengthened for public figures or public matters.
  • Exception clauses are needed to protect sources.
  • Media outlets should be exempted if they believed it was true for "reasonable reasons."
  • Cases where proof is impossible and cases where proof failed should be distinguished.

• More sophisticated law design is needed. Main measures are as follows:

  • The concept of false reports should be defined more clearly and specifically.
  • Standards and procedures for imposing fines should be specified in the law.
  • Independent organizations, not the government, should make judgments.
  • The expertise and independence of the Press Arbitration Commission should be strengthened.
  • The problem of duplicate punishment with existing defamation laws should be reviewed.

4️⃣ Related Terms Explanation

🔎 Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies for Damage Caused by Press Reports

• The Press Arbitration Act is a law that quickly remedies damage caused by press reports.
  • The Press Arbitration Act is a law enacted in 1981 to quickly and fairly remedy damage such as defamation or privacy violations caused by press reports. The core purpose is to maintain a balance between press freedom and protection of individual rights.
  • Main contents of this law include: First, establishing the Press Arbitration Commission to mediate press disputes. Second, victims can request correction reports, rebuttal reports, and follow-up reports. Third, simpler mediation procedures than court litigation can be used when claiming damage compensation. Fourth, statutory damage compensation (3-5 times actual damages) can be claimed if certain requirements are met.
  • The Press Arbitration Commission has the advantage of being faster and less expensive than litigation, so many victims use it. However, if mediation fails, lawsuits must be filed in court, and there is also a limitation that mediation results have no enforcement power. This amendment aims to supplement these limitations and strengthen damage remedies, but concerns about violations of press freedom are also being raised.

🔎 Burden of Proof

• Burden of proof is the obligation to prove facts in legal disputes.
  • Burden of proof refers to a party's responsibility to prove facts favorable to them with evidence in legal disputes. In principle, the side claiming rights (plaintiff) bears the burden of proof. If proof fails, that fact is considered non-existent and they lose the case.
  • Distribution of burden of proof in defamation lawsuits is very important. First, generally the plaintiff claiming damage must prove defamation facts and damages. Second, it is a principle of democratic society to reduce the defendant's (media outlet's) burden of proof to protect freedom of expression. Third, the victim's burden of proof is further strengthened for public figures or public matters. Fourth, media outlets can be exempted if they prove the content was true or they had reasonable grounds to believe it was true.
  • The Press Arbitration Act amendment reversed this principle, requiring media outlets to prove the truthfulness of reports. This makes it easier to remedy victims but may impose excessive burdens on media outlets and restrict expression activities. Especially for investigative reporting where source protection is important, proving truthfulness is very difficult and reporting itself may be abandoned. Distribution of burden of proof is a key issue in finding a balance between freedom of expression and rights protection.

🔎 Press Freedom

• Press freedom is a core value that supports democracy.
  • Press freedom means the freedom for press organizations to report and cover stories without interference from the state or power. It is an important part of freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and is closely connected to people's right to know.
  • Reasons why press freedom is important are as follows: First, it functions as the "fourth estate" monitoring and criticizing power. Second, it provides a foundation for citizens 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 reveals social injustices and corruption.
  • If the Press Arbitration Act amendment excessively restricts press freedom, serious problems may occur. A "chilling effect" may appear where media outlets refrain from sensitive topics or power criticism due to concerns about lawsuits and fines. There is also a risk that partial errors inevitably occurring during reporting may be considered false reports. Sophisticated law design is needed that does not violate press freedom while regulating false information and protecting victims.

🔎 Right to Request Correction Reports

• The right to request correction reports is the right to correct wrong reports.
  • The right to request correction reports means the right for victims to request media outlets to publish reports correcting false content when press reports are not true or are misreported and cause damage. It is stipulated in Article 14 of the Press Arbitration Act.
  • Requirements for requesting correction reports include: First, it must be a press report on factual assertions. Opinions or commentaries are not subject. Second, the reported content must not be true or be misreported. Third, the victim's rights or interests must have been violated. Fourth, it must be requested within 3 months from the date of the report.
  • Correction reports must be published in the same space, time slot, and size as the original report, and media outlets must publish it within 3 days of receiving the correction report request. If the media outlet refuses, victims can apply for mediation to the Press Arbitration Commission or file a lawsuit in court. The correction report system is an important means to quickly correct press misreports and restore victims' reputation, but there are criticisms about limited effectiveness as media outlets often refuse correction reports.

5️⃣ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: How can I get remedies when damaged by press reports?

A: You can apply for mediation to the Press Arbitration Commission or file a lawsuit in court.

• There are several ways to remedy damage caused by press reports. First, applying for mediation to the Press Arbitration Commission is most common. Mediation applications must be made within 3 months from the date of the report, and application writing and procedures are simple with low fees. The Press Arbitration Commission listens to both parties' opinions and proposes a mediation plan, and mediation is established if both sides agree. When mediation is established, correction reports, rebuttal reports, and damage compensation are quickly provided.
• Second, you can file a lawsuit directly in court if Press Arbitration Commission mediation fails or without going through mediation. You can claim damage compensation through civil lawsuits or request punishment for defamation through criminal complaints. However, litigation has disadvantages of taking much time and money and having a heavy burden of proof. Third, you can directly request correction or rebuttal reports from the media outlet. If the media outlet voluntarily accepts, the quickest resolution is possible. If you are damaged, secure evidence and choose an appropriate method by consulting with the Press Arbitration Commission (call 1348 without area code) or a lawyer.

Q: What changes will there be in press reporting if the amendment passes?

A: Media outlets will verify facts more thoroughly before reporting, but critical reporting may also be restricted.

• If the amendment passes, media outlets will be much more careful about fact-checking before reporting. This is because if judged as false reports, there will be enormous legal burdens such as paying presumed compensation and being fined. This may have positive effects of reducing misreports and increasing media credibility. Also, victims will be able to receive compensation without specifically proving damages, making press report damage remedies easier.
• However, negative impacts are also expected to be substantial. First, critical reporting on those in power or large corporations may be greatly restricted. With the burden of proof on media outlets and fines imposed, reporting with high legal risks will not be done at all. Second, investigative and in-depth reporting may greatly decrease. Evidence often cannot be disclosed to protect sources, but reports become false if truthfulness cannot be proven. Third, "self-censorship" where media outlets only choose safe reporting may become widespread. Consequently, there is a risk that the press's power-monitoring function will weaken and people's right to know will be violated.

Q: Do other countries have similar laws?

A: Most democratic countries prioritize freedom of expression and are cautious about press regulation.

• Most countries have systems to remedy damage caused by press reports, but regulation methods and intensity differ greatly by country. First, the United States very strongly protects freedom of expression according to the First Amendment. In defamation lawsuits against public figures, victims must prove "actual malice," meaning the media outlet knew it was false or disregarded whether it was true. Therefore, media outlets have almost no burden of proof, and victims' burden of proof is very heavy. This is to maximally guarantee press freedom.
• Second, European countries also value press freedom but also protect individual reputation rights. Germany has well-developed correction report request rights, and France allows criminal punishment if media outlets commit malicious defamation. However, the burden of proof remains with victims, and there is no system for government-imposed fines. Third, Japan has relatively strict defamation laws, but exemption is granted if public interest and truthfulness are recognized. Fourth, authoritarian countries like Singapore strictly regulate the press but receive criticism from the international community. Korea's Press Arbitration Act amendment is a much stronger regulatory method than international standards in terms of burden of proof shift and government's fine-imposing authority, so concerns about violations of freedom of expression are significant.

View Table of Contents

• Go to Guide