Online Communities Grapple with Hate Speech Regulations
The prevalence of hateful content on online platforms has sparked a significant debate regarding their regulation. Following recent remarks by President Lee Jae-myung condemning hate speech and referencing the closure of Ilbe, a prominent online community, discussions surrounding the oversight of online communities have intensified. The discourse centers on the extent of responsibility large online communities should bear based on their user base, contrasted with concerns that stricter regulations could stifle freedom of expression.
This debate gained considerable momentum following incidents involving Starbucks Korea’s ‘5.18 Tank Day’ promotion and alleged hateful behavior by individuals identified as Ilbe users at a memorial service for the late President Roh Moo-hyun. The discussion has since expanded beyond Ilbe to encompass major online communities nationwide.
Dominant Online Communities in South Korea
According to data from Wapleboard, a community site developer, the top online communities in South Korea based on monthly active users (MAU) in May were:
- DCInside: 258 million users
- ePoom Korea (Femko): 1.04 million users
- Ruliweb: 61 million users
- TheQoo: 59 million users
- AkaArchive: 51 million users
Community Operators Push Back Against Closure Calls
In response to criticism that online communities like Femko serve as hotbeds for hate speech, and calls for their closure, the operators of Femko issued a statement on May 28th titled ‘Our Stance on Community Attacks’. While acknowledging the necessity of removing illegal content, the operators argued that targeting an entire community based on its perceived character or the actions of a few is not a fair form of regulation.
A particular point of contention raised by Femko’s operators is the perceived disparity in how domestic platforms are treated compared to international social media services. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram, which are difficult to regulate under domestic law, are actively used by government officials. Meanwhile, domestic platforms that adhere to national laws are reportedly facing disproportionate scrutiny.
The Femko operators emphasized that freedom of expression must be protected equally across all platforms and that the same principles should apply even to communities whose opinions are not widely shared. They stated, “Freedom of expression must be protected equally everywhere. The same principles must be applied to places where opinions that someone dislikes are gathered.”
DCInside, another major online community, has not yet issued a formal statement regarding the current debate. However, the platform announced plans to update its terms of service on June 5th to include a clause prohibiting the posting and distribution of content related to suicide and self-harm information. Violators may face content removal without notice or reporting to relevant authorities.
Some in the industry interpret this move by DCInside as a preemptive measure to mitigate potential issues amidst the ongoing regulatory discussions.
Calls for Stricter Regulation and Platform Accountability
While existing laws permit the removal of individual posts or blocking access to specific content, there are no clear legal grounds for shutting down entire online communities. Previous attempts to ban Ilbe following a 2018 petition did not result in official government action, as it was determined that specific online communities, unlike illegal sites established for obscenity or gambling, are not subject to outright bans under the Telecommunications Network Act.
Supreme Court rulings have generally supported the blocking of entire websites only when the site’s primary purpose is illegal. However, the introduction of anti-discrimination legislation could alter this landscape. Such legislation might hold not only the authors of hate speech but also online community operators who fail to promptly remove such content, accountable.
The current government’s roadmap, ‘The People’s Path to Great Transformation,’ released in its first year, outlined a commitment to actively monitor the legislative progress of anti-discrimination laws and investigate the implementation and impact of overseas anti-discrimination legislation. This initiative aims to lay the groundwork for legislation against hate speech and discrimination.
It is understood that the ruling Democratic Party is considering legislation that would impose a level of responsibility on platforms that repeatedly generate and distribute hate speech and slander, often referred to as the ‘Ilbe Ban Act’.
Concerns Over Freedom of Expression
A significant concern is that measures intended to curb hate speech could lead to broader censorship of online communities. There is a fear that if community operators, concerned about legal liability, resort to excessive preemptive content moderation, spaces for political and social discourse could shrink.
Ultimately, the core of the debate lies in defining hate speech and determining the extent of platform responsibility. While there is a general consensus on the need for regulation, ambiguity in the standards could lead to disputes over the infringement of freedom of expression.
Hong Kyung-yeol, a lawyer at Yulchon Law Firm, commented, “If simple negative expressions are also defined as hate speech, freedom of expression could be excessively restricted. Given that defamation and moral corruption are already covered by criminal law, the remaining gaps could be addressed by amending related laws.”
