Democratic Party must reconsider its push for a 'fake information' bill

The bill’s broad definition of “malicious fabricated information” and its expansion of administrative review powers threaten the core of press freedom.

Democratic Party Rep. Choi Min-hee, chair of the National Assembly’s Science, ICT, Broadcasting and Communications Committee, approves a revision to the Information and Communications Network Act during the committee’s first full session of the 430th extraordinary session at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul, on Dec. 10, as People Power Party lawmakers walk out. [NEWS1]

A revision to the Information and Communications Network Act, labeled the fake information eradication bill, passed the National Assembly’s Science, ICT, Broadcasting and Communications Committee on Wednesday under the unilateral drive of the Democratic Party. The bill would impose punitive damages of up to five times the harm when media outlets or online creators intentionally distribute illegal or fabricated information. While the goal of strengthening remedies for victims deserves attention, the proposal poses a serious threat to press freedom and warrants reconsideration.

The most troubling omission is the refusal to exclude politicians, senior officials and large corporations from the right to seek punitive damages. Media organizations and civic groups have repeatedly warned that, under the bill, actors with overwhelming resources could file massive lawsuits against journalists and YouTubers to stifle criticism. Such a framework risks turning the bill into a shield for those in power rather than a tool for protecting the public. Fears of a surge in strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits, are well-founded.

The bill also creates a structure that effectively presumes “malice” in inaccurate reporting. The DP removed earlier language about reversing the burden of proof, yet inserted multiple criteria that allow malice to be inferred and reflected in calculating damages. If media organizations cannot sufficiently demonstrate public-interest intent or good faith, they could be held liable. The burden of proving the absence of malice falls on the press and the public. In the United States, by contrast, public figures suing the media must prove “actual malice,” and many states have anti-SLAPP laws to prevent intimidation suits.

The issue of double regulation of traditional media is also significant. Under the Act on Press Arbitration and Damage Remedies, news outlets are already subject to requirements for corrections, rebuttal reports and civil liability. The new bill would add punitive damages under the network law. YouTube channels that are not registered as news organizations, however, would face only the latter. The result is a paradox in which professional, regulated media face heavier penalties than unregistered platforms. The bill’s broad definition of “malicious fabricated information” and its expansion of administrative review powers threaten the core of press freedom.

Freedom of expression is among the most essential liberties in a democracy. It is difficult to understand why a ruling party that claims to champion democratic values would push ahead with legislation that restricts this freedom without meaningful public consultation or deliberation. Laws should not shield political power but protect the rights of the press and the people who hold that power in check. The ruling party should reconsider this bill in its entirety before it reaches the floor.

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.