The Information and Communications Network Act That Catches 'Cyber Wreckers': Objectivity Is Vital to Prevent Suppression of 'Freedom of Expression'

Until now, the tyranny of so-called cyber wreckers—who package others' suffering sensationally to rake in enormous views and profits—has emerged as a serious social problem. Inducing public anger with sensational thumbnails and phrases like shock and exposé, and publicly shaming specific individuals online, has been their typical money-making tool. Victims targeted by reckless doxxing or malicious rumors saw their daily lives collapse entirely, while the perpetrators sneered at slap-on-the-wrist punishments and pocketed enormous advertising revenue. In response, with the enforcement of the amended Information and Communications Network Act on the 7th, an institutional device to rein in the misdeeds of cyber wreckers has been established.

The core of this amendment is the introduction of punitive damages of up to five times the damage amount for those who gain unjust profits through malicious fake news. It imposes a penalty surcharge of up to 1 billion won for repeated spreading of false facts, and imposes on large platform operators the obligation to establish self-regulatory operating policies including deletion of problematic posts and suspension of perpetrators' accounts. The intent is to curb the illegal profit structure built on others' suffering as collateral, and to hold platforms—which had remained closer to bystanders—directly accountable as well.

There is no social disagreement on the need to cut off the harm of cyber wreckers who make money off others' suffering. However, along with the law's enforcement, controversy over infringement of freedom of expression has surfaced. The biggest issue is that in reality it is difficult to clearly draw the boundary between what is malicious false information and what is legitimate raising of suspicion. This is because legal regulatory standards such as unjust profit or false and manipulated information leave ample room for arbitrary interpretation, bending whichever way one wishes.

Such ambiguity inevitably brings about a chilling effect. Information posters who must bear the heavy responsibility of punitive damages or penalty surcharges are highly likely to shut their own mouths to avoid any possible dispute. The bigger problem is the moves of giant platform operators saddled with the regulatory obligation. From the platform's standpoint, rather than taking the risk of being embroiled in disputes or facing sanctions under the pretext of relieving wronged victims, they may choose over-censorship by preemptively deleting and blocking posts that carry room for controversy. This means that even legitimate criticism of power or public-interest raising of suspicion could be blocked by companies' administratively convenient judgments, shrinking the healthy public sphere itself.

Ultimately, for this amendment to achieve the significance of the legal revision—victim protection rather than suppression of freedom of expression—objectivity is vital. Phrasing exploited by cyber wreckers, such as "according to a tip" or "there is controversy," must be strictly discerned based on its substance. But at the same time, for posts unjustly blocked, the platform's transparent and prompt objection procedure must be guaranteed.

Heo Ji-seon, attorney at Daeryun LLC, said, "In particular, platform operators must keep in mind that the practice of collectively deleting content merely because a report was filed could rather become the seed of new disputes. Documenting the criteria for deletion and blocking in advance, and having procedures to promptly explain the grounds when an objection is filed, is a realistic way to reduce future legal risk. To avoid the folly of eliminating the arena of healthy public opinion formation in the attempt to catch cyber wreckers, meticulous societal surveillance and deliberation over exactly where the blade of the law should be aimed are more urgently needed than ever."

[Read the full article]
The Information and Communications Network Act That Catches 'Cyber Wreckers': Objectivity Is Vital to Prevent Suppression of 'Freedom of Expression' (Go to link)