South Korea's 'Misinformation Eradication Act' Takes Effect Amid Free Speech Concerns

South Korea's revised Information and Communications Network Act, dubbed the 'Misinformation Eradication Act,' officially comes into effect today, July 7. The legislation aims to combat the proliferation of false and manipulated information online, a growing concern in the digital age. However, civil society groups and legal experts continue to voice apprehension regarding the law's potential to curb freedom of expression due to its ambiguous definitions and the broad discretionary powers it grants to platforms and regulatory bodies.

The revised law expands the scope of prohibited content beyond existing illegal information, such as obscenity, to include 'false and manipulated information.' This is defined as content that is partially false or altered to be mistaken for fact. Information containing hate speech or discrimination is also classified as illegal. Major platforms like Naver and YouTube, with over one million daily users, are now required to establish their own policies for handling reports of such information. Any individual can report suspected misinformation, and platforms must decide on its removal. Disputed cases will be mediated by the Broadcasting Media and Communications Arbitration Committee.

Penalties for disseminating illegal or false information have been significantly strengthened. The Korea Communications Commission can impose fines of up to 1 billion won for repeated violations. Furthermore, media outlets, YouTubers, and influencers with over 100,000 subscribers or an average of 100,000 monthly views are subject to punitive damages, potentially reaching five times the actual losses incurred.

Despite the government's intent to address the severe problem of online misinformation, critics argue that the law fails to adequately resolve the potential for over-regulation and the chilling effect on free speech. The core issue lies in the ambiguity of the definitions for 'illegal' and 'false' information, leaving much of the decision-making to the discretion of individual platform companies and the media arbitration committee. This could lead platforms to err on the side of caution and remove content preemptively to minimize liability. Concerns also exist about the potential for strategic lawsuits aimed at silencing critical media voices, a tactic known as SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).

“

The law's implementation could lead to excessive regulation as platforms are given policy-making obligations, and there are concerns about a flood of lawsuits as misinformation is broadly regulated.