Home > National > Social Affairs

Guilty of defamation for naming bullies? Libel law under scrutiny over fines for facts.

Published: 11 Nov. 2025, 19:09

YOON SO-YEON
[email protected]

The Late YouTuber Pyo Ye-rim was sued by bullies after she released their personal information online in January 2023. She took her own life in October that year. [SCREEN CAPTURE]

A victim of school bullying fined for defamation against the bullies; a mother desperately asking for child support from her ex-husband refusing to pay, also fined for defamation — Korea's long-debated defamation law, which punishes not only those who spread falsehoods but also the truth, may finally be scrapped after a plethora of incidents involving victims penalized after speaking out for the #MeToo movement, posting information about a former spouse who refuses to pay child support and more.

The decades-old debate was reignited on Tuesday afternoon after President Lee Jae Myung called for a review of the criminal offense of factual defamation — a controversial statute long criticized for limiting free speech but defended as necessary to protect privacy.

Lee instructed Justice Minister Jung Sung-ho to examine ways to abolish the law, saying, “Speaking about facts should not be criminally punished — it ought to be resolved through civil litigation.”

The Democratic Party is also pursuing the law’s abolishment alongside its push for new legislation allowing civil damages for fake news. Lawmakers argue that ensuring freedom of expression by eliminating criminal penalties for stating facts would give legitimacy to the more contested proposal to regulate falsehoods online.

A placard revealing the faces, names and information of spouses refusing to pay child support is put up on a street in Korea. [YONHAP]

Public sentiment appears to favor the amendment. Earlier this year, a petition calling for the clause's repeal surpassed 50,000 signatures, the threshold for formal consideration by the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee.

Support for repeal has grown amid public outcry over cases in which sexual assault or school bullying victims were sued by their perpetrators and handed penalties for speaking out. Campaigns like #MeToo and Bad Fathers, which names parents who fail to pay child support, have brought attention to the collateral damage of the law.

However, legal experts have urged caution. Many point out that the law was set in place to protect the reputation of individuals against social stigma that could have real-world consequences.

In fact, the Constitutional Court upheld the law in a 2021 ruling with a 5–4 decision, citing the rapid spread and lasting damage of defamatory content in today’s media environment. “Once a person’s reputation is harmed, full recovery is difficult, and that makes restrictions more necessary,” the court said.

Walls and pillars of Seoul Women's University in Nowon District, northern Seoul, are covered in graffiti by angered students on Nov. 18, 2024. The damage came after a professor who was accused of sexual harassment sued students for defamation after they put up a hand-written poster demanding punishment and the school's apology for overly lenient measures. [NEWS1]

The ruling acknowledged the risk posed by so-called cyber wreckers — content creators who profit by exposing individuals’ private lives — and noted that Korea’s lack of punitive damages in civil suits made criminal penalties one of the few legal protections available.

During oral arguments, the Ministry of Justice had also defended keeping the law, stating that “even objective truths can cause serious invasions of privacy when they involve a person’s past, sexual orientation or medical history,” and that “expressions made in the public interest are not subject to punishment under current law.”

Still, with the court’s decision narrowly split, future rulings could go the other way. The justices who found the law unconstitutional warned that it facilitated legal tactics aimed at silencing critics and questioned whether reputations built on falsehoods were worth protecting at the cost of free expression.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
BY YOON SO-YEON, KIM CHUL-WOONG [[email protected]]