Supreme Court rules 'thug' comment not defamation in election support case

The Supreme Court of South Korea has sent a defamation case back to a lower court, ruling that a netizen's comment calling musician Shin Dae-chul a "thug" for publicly supporting then-presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung was not defamation.

The case involved a comment posted in February 2022 on an online news article about Shin, the guitarist of the band Sinawe, declaring his support for Lee. The netizen wrote, "Does a thug supporting a thug make news?"

“

Does a thug supporting a thug make news?

Both the lower courts had found the netizen guilty, deeming "thug" to be a demeaning expression that could lower the victim's social standing. They argued that using such a derogatory term was not protected by freedom of expression.

“

The expression 'thug' is sufficient to lower the victim's social evaluation and is an expression of contempt.

However, the Supreme Court's Second Division, led by Justice Kwon Young-jun, disagreed. Citing recent precedents, the court stated that expressions of negative opinions or criticisms, as long as they do not severely infringe on personal rights or are not hate speech, should be considered within the realm of public discourse. The court emphasized that applying defamation charges to such expressions requires caution.

The Supreme Court clarified that the comment appeared to be a "somewhat unrefined expression of the defendant's negative/critical opinion or emotion" regarding Shin's public support for a presidential candidate and its media coverage. It was not seen as an expression that would "seriously threaten the individual's dignity" or "humiliate the other party to the point of destroying their personality."

“

The comment appears to be a somewhat unrefined expression of the defendant's negative/critical opinion or emotion regarding the victim's stance on the presidential candidate and its media coverage, rather than an expression that would seriously threaten the individual's dignity or humiliate the other party to the point of destroying their personality.

This decision reflects a broader legal trend in South Korea to distinguish between genuine personal attacks and strong, albeit unpolished, expressions of political opinion. The court reiterated its stance from a May ruling, suggesting that expressions of temporary emotion, not based on discrimination or hatred, can often be managed through social and cultural self-evaluation rather than state punishment.

“

It is necessary to be cautious about exercising state penal power by applying the standard of defamation even to expressions of this level.