This article addresses the issue of freedom of expression being suppressed in South Korea in the name of public interest and the state, and discusses how freedom of expression, a fundamental right in a democracy, should be protected.
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. However, in recent years, it seems that freedom of expression has been suppressed on the grounds that it may violate the public interest and disrupt the state. Many people still remember the case of Mr. Park Dae-sung, who in late 2008 posted on the South Korean portal Daum Agora’s economic discussion board under the pseudonym “Minerva”. Like a brave fortune teller predicting the future of those who came to see him, he posted a number of economic predictions on the internet that proved to be true. He began by predicting that prices would rise in the second half of 2008 and advising people to buy six months’ worth of basic necessities in advance, then predicted that the subprime mortgage crisis would affect South Korea and that Lehman Brothers was in trouble. Since then, Minerva has become a social phenomenon, as his predictions about the Korean economy and the global economy, including currency fluctuations and stock index changes, have been matched by actual economic events. On December 29, 2008, he posted that the South Korean government had sent an urgent letter to the seven largest financial institutions and major corporations stating that they would be banned from buying dollars. In response, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance issued a press release denying the story was true, and at the same time, prosecutors detained Minerva on charges of spreading falsehoods based on Article 47(1) of the Basic Telecommunications Act. The prosecution deemed the arrest necessary due to the nature and gravity of the case, which affected the foreign exchange market and the country’s credibility. After several trials, he was acquitted on January 4, 2011. Article 47(1) of the Basic Law on Telecommunications, which was used to detain him, states that “a person who uses telecommunications facilities for the purpose of harming the public interest shall be punished.” This provision was ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court.
In the above case, a person predicted the country’s economy and posted his opinion online, and the government and prosecutors took him to court. This is a case of violating an individual’s right to free expression. Does freedom of expression need to be managed and suppressed by the government like in a dictatorship? Let’s answer that question. Freedom of expression is something that no one has the right to infringe on and should be fully guaranteed.
Now let’s talk about why we should fully guarantee freedom of expression. First of all, Article 21(1) of the Constitution states that “All citizens have the right to freedom of speech, press, publication, assembly, and association”, which makes freedom of expression one of the fundamental rights of citizens. In other words, freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights of democracy. Freedom of expression is the freedom of each individual to freely express their thoughts and ideas to the outside world using any medium of their choice, such as the internet or newspapers. Freedom of expression is essential in Korea, which is a democratic republic, not a dictatorship or communist country. The more opinions are freely exchanged, presented and refined through debate, the stronger democracy becomes.
Second, the effective response to falsehoods arising from freedom of expression is not punishment, but criticism of other forms of freedom of expression. In the Minerva case, Professor Park Kyung Shin of Korea University School of Law said that “the most effective response to so-called falsehoods is not punishment, but the guarantee of freedom to criticize falsehoods.” If an individual spreads falsehoods under the guise of freedom of expression, there may be people who are harmed as a result. The spreader of falsehoods will not be held accountable. This is a form of violence. Naturally, there will be opposition to the falsehood, and the falsehood will be criticized. Then the lie will stop spreading. Falsehoods can be self-punished and countered through self-correction in the space of expression.
Third, the only countries that suppress freedom of expression are dictatorships and communist countries. The world’s democracies do not suppress freedom of expression. For example, the criminalization of spreading falsehoods is being abolished one after another. Panama abolished its libel law in 1978, and Canada declared it unconstitutional in 1992, saying that no democracy criminalizes false reporting. And Zimbabwe abolished the offense in 2000. Thus, when faced with the choice between criminalizing falsehoods and protecting freedom of expression, the highest courts in each country have favored freedom of expression and declared falsehoods unconstitutional. The self-correcting nature of falsehoods described in the preceding paragraph means that the responsibility for spreading falsehoods lies with the spreader. They should be able to criticize themselves, and if they cause damage to others, they should be punished accordingly, such as defamation. The government’s recent policies seem to be aimed at cracking down on individuals and media that have negative opinions about the government. “It’s ironic that a president who has taken a decisive approach to promoting freedom in one part of the country is trying to stifle it in the south,” said New America Media. It’s also easy to see that this is not the kind of behavior that belongs in a democracy, given that Reuters listed the Minerva case as “Oddly Enough.
In the past, under President Park Chung-hee, Emergency Measure No. 1 was issued (January 8, 1974). Paragraph 3, “Any act of fabricating and spreading rumors is prohibited,” and paragraph 4, “Any act of soliciting, inciting, propagandizing, or broadcasting, reporting, publishing, or otherwise informing others of the acts prohibited in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above is prohibited,” show that the government suppressed freedom of expression, a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. At the time, most of the violations of Emergency Measure 1 were criticizing the president and the government. The people entrusted the president and the government to represent them, so it was natural for them to voice opinions that criticized them. However, many people were arrested for criticizing the president, and the fear instilled in the people prevented them from saying what they wanted to say. However, there were no instances of democratic society being endangered by people criticizing the president and the government.
Before we continue, it’s important to note that freedom of expression should be practiced within the bounds of not harming others. If someone is harmed and hurt by what one person writes, it is a form of violence and an act of abuse. I also want to emphasize that you have to be responsible for what you express.
In response to this argument, some people argue that restrictions on freedom of expression are necessary because socially influential people expressing their opinions can unnecessarily stir up social controversy. When celebrities used social media to promote elections, some people said they would sue them for violating election laws. However, they were simply encouraging people to vote on a personal level without causing harm to others. They were not expressing any political intentions, and were only trying to protect people’s rights. Even if they did, there’s nothing wrong with that. When a celebrity expresses an opinion, there are going to be people who think it’s right and people who think differently. Those who disagree can criticize them. That criticism leads to criticism, which leads to criticism, which leads to more criticism, which leads to more people discussing the topic in depth. The result is a stronger democracy. I believe that freedom of expression should be freely guaranteed so that it is not suppressed in the name of state and public interest.
Finally, I am frustrated that in a democratic society, where we believe that the state and the people are united to lead the country, people’s free expression of opinions is suppressed. A society in which people cannot make their voices heard is a society in which democracy cannot take root. Freedom of expression is a right of the people guaranteed by the Constitution. A society where this freedom is suppressed is not a healthy democracy. By suppressing freedom of expression in the Minerva case, South Korea is going against the trend of democratic countries around the world.
