Home > Opinion > Columns

Revisions to the Information and Communications Network Act threaten freedom of expression

Published: 15 Jan. 2026, 00:04

Lee Seong-yeob

The author is a professor at Korea University’s Graduate School of Management of Technology and president of the Korean Society of Information and Communications Law.

As digital technologies advance and information networks spread rapidly, the harm caused by fake news has multiplied. False information can leave deep personal scars and, at a broader national and social level, obstruct citizens’ ability to make judgments based on objective facts. The spread of fabricated claims about political candidates can distort voting behavior, while inflammatory content can fuel mutual hostility and social conflict, eroding the foundations of democracy. Because such content spreads instantly through social media, repairing the damage is difficult even after it is identified as false.

Lawmakers pass a revision to the Information and Communications Network Act aimed at curbing false and manipulated information during an extraordinary plenary session of the National Assembly on Dec. 24, 2025, led by the ruling Democratic Party. The seats of the opposition People Power Party are empty. [YONHAP]

Citing these harms, the Lee Jae Myung administration and the ruling party passed revisions to the Information and Communications Network Act, often referred to as a “fake news regulation law.” The core aim is to impose mandatory controls on what the law defines as “false or manipulated information.” False information is defined as content that is wholly or partially untrue, while manipulated information refers to content altered to mislead audiences into believing it is factual. Under the revised law, content qualifies as false or manipulated information if the distributor knows its nature and disseminates it with the intent to cause harm or gain improper benefit by infringing on another’s personal rights, property rights or the public interest.

Under the amendments, anyone who intentionally or negligently distributes such information through information networks and causes harm is liable for damages. Media outlets, YouTubers and others who post content as part of their profession may face punitive damages of up to five times the assessed loss.

The law also allows the Korea Media and Communications Commission to impose administrative fines of up to 1 billion won if the same content is repeatedly circulated two or more times after a court ruling has been finalized. Large online service providers, once notified of false or manipulated information, are authorized to take strong measures, including deletion, blocking, limiting exposure and suspending or terminating user accounts.

Several features of the revised law stand out. First, the European Union’s Digital Services Act imposes system-level obligations on very large online platforms, such as risk assessments, mitigation measures and transparency reporting, for illegal and harmful content as a whole. By contrast, Korea’s revisions focus on regulating content itself by judging its truthfulness and the distributor’s intent and purpose.

Second, there is a high risk that those with political power or financial resources could abuse the law as a tool to pressure critical speech through strategic lawsuits. Third, the law applies broadly to all users and platforms rather than targeting specific businesses. Fourth, it provides both civil remedies, such as damages, and administrative sanctions, such as fines. Fifth, it imposes obligations of so-called self-regulation on platform operators.

The Constitutional Court of Korea evaluates whether laws restricting fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, violate the principle of proportionality through a four-step test: the legitimacy of purpose, the suitability of means, the minimal infringement, and the balance of legal interests. While the revised law may satisfy the first two criteria, it likely falls short on the minimal-infringement criterion. Key concepts such as falsity, manipulation, improper benefit and public interest are not clearly defined.

Members of civic groups, including the Fair Media Citizens’ Coalition and the New Future Forum, hold a press conference at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul, on Jan. 14, 2025, to condemn the Democratic Party’s plan to file complaints over what it calls fake news inciting insurrection via KakaoTalk.[YONHAP]

In its 2010 ruling on the so-called Minerva case, the Constitutional Court struck down provisions of the former Basic Telecommunications Act that punished false communications intended to harm the public interest, finding that the concepts of “public interest” and “falsehood” violated the principle of clarity. The current revisions define false or manipulated information separately from illegal content, raising doubts about whether the state can legitimately regulate information that is not illegal.

Problems also arise in terms of balancing legal interests. Compared to the public interest in preventing harm from false information, the private interest in freedom of expression risks being broadly and fundamentally infringed. Vague standards and the threat of large damages could produce a chilling effect, encouraging self-censorship. Platforms may preemptively delete or block ambiguous content, leading to private censorship and potentially violating the constitutional ban on prior restraint.

When the state determines the truth or falsity of expression and prohibits false speech, it risks excessively infringing on freedom of expression. Such regulation may also hinder innovation in the platform industry and weaken competitiveness through discriminatory enforcement against domestic platforms. Rather than imposing direct controls on false expression, it would be more reasonable to strengthen self-corrective mechanisms such as fact-checking across media, including social networks. At the same time, digital literacy education is needed to foster greater responsibility among users.

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.