Roundtable Media literacy key to helping Koreans filter fake news

Korea Times columnists join The Korea Times Roundtable to examine the Fake News Act, which took effect on July 7, at the conference room of The Korea Times in Seoul on July 15. From left are Pace University professor Min Seong-jae, Hongik University professor Cho Hee Kyoung, Dankook University professor Park Jung-won and Korea Times chief editorial writer Shim Jae-yun. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul

By Kang Hyun-kyung

• Published Jul 22, 2026 8:41 AM KST

The Fake News Act, which took effect on July 7, has sparked widespread debate. Combating fake news is undoubtedly necessary. The threat posed by misinformation will only grow in the age of artificial intelligence, as advanced technology makes it easier than ever for people to create and spread false or manipulated content.

Despite this pressing need, the act has drawn criticism for relying on controversial measures, vague definitions of what constitutes fake or manipulated news and excessive punitive damages, making it appear more like a quick fix than a carefully considered solution.

To examine the act's shortcomings and explore possible improvements, The Korea Times hosted a roundtable discussion featuring three columnists: Park Jung-won, professor of law at Dankook University; Cho Hee-kyoung, professor of law at Hongik University; and Min Seong-jae, professor at Pace University in New York.

The panelists emphasized that the government should consider making media literacy a core part of education to help citizens distinguish factual information from fake news. The discussion was moderated by The Korea Times chief editorial writer Shim Jae-yun. The following is a transcript of the discussion, translated and edited for clarity.

Q. The amendments to the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (also known as the Fake News Act) came into effect on July 7. Any thoughts about the legislation?

MIN: I concur with the legislators about the need to introduce an amendment to combat fake news. Despite this, like many others, I am worried because it leaves room for undermining freedom of expression.

PARK: I think the law itself is controversial and like Dr. Min said, it risks undermining freedom of expression. I am particularly concerned about Article 44-7(2), which defines fake or manipulated information in overly broad terms. It covers information that infringes another person's rights or the public interest, creating a significant risk of overly broad application. Such a vague definition will inevitably motivate people to abuse the law. I wonder what made the DPK push it through despite severe opposition from the main opposition People Power Party. The ruling party skipped hearings, revealing a flawed procedure. I regret that the amendment itself is not sophisticated, as well.

CHO: I have never seen a lawmaking process like this. It was very disappointing. Its content, the flawed procedure before its approval in the National Assembly and other details — all of them were very disappointing. The original bill that had been introduced in the National Assembly had included measures that enhanced freedom of expression as well as these measures against fake news and hate speech, but the protective part of the bill was discarded in a single session in the main assembly and only the punitive part remained. I had not expected this kind of legislation to be pushed through in this manner by a party that professes itself to be a progressive one.

Q. The Fake News Act stipulates that creators, media outlets and social media influencers with more than 100,000 subscribers will face massive punitive damages of up to five times the actual loss. Malicious offenders can face up to 1 billion won ($676,000) in fines. Is it too harsh?

PARK: I think the consequences are obvious. It will create a chilling effect on content creators due to the excessive level of punitive damages. They’ll fear that they could be caught in an unwanted legal dispute and try to rely on self-censorship to avoid a financially catastrophic situation. There's no doubt that freedom of expression will be compromised.

Q. One of the concerns with regard to the Fake News Act is that politicians will be tempted to resort to what I call “selective legal responses.” What I mean with the expression is that they will want to sue or take legal actions against social media influencers who criticize them, while taking no measures on their media allies. It is selective justice, isn’t it?

PARK: I won’t rule this out. I think chances of selective legal responses are pretty high.

MIN: I agree. But such reactions are not strange at all when we look back at what happened when disinformation about mad cow disease and conspiracy theories about COVID vaccines erupted and how politicians reacted to them. Selective responses were common even around scientifically proven issues like mad cow disease and vaccines.

CHO: The problem that I see is that there is no clear definition of fake news. Sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish fake news from the truth. There is a saying that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. I would like to point out that harsh laws and measures designed to control certain harms at the expense of freedom of expression or press freedom are prone to be abused. This is apparent when we look at countries that have introduced similarly harsh laws against fake news, such as Singapore, Russia, Turkey and Malaysia.

Q Interestingly, the Fake News Act bans various kinds of discrimination. Discrimination based on race, nationality, religion, gender, disability, age, social status and income level — even hate speech is subject to punishment. How should we interpret this?

PARK: In Europe, ethnic minorities are protected from discrimination and hate speech through well-developed laws and judicial precedents. Those legal frameworks are rooted in Europe's traumatic past, including the Holocaust. Korea has a very different historical and social context. My concern is not the protection itself, but that the Act adopts broad and abstract provisions without the same legal tradition.

CHO: For me, the inclusion of race in the definition of hate speech ban in the Fake News Act is not so unusual. The formulation is simply taking the classic definition of hate speech. Also, it’s not as if there is no discrimination based on race in Korea. Korea is already quite diverse. When we go to small cities or towns in rural areas, we can easily see that those communities are not functioning properly without foreign workers. I was told that hate speech, racial slurs and discrimination based on ethnicity is prevalent on the internet. When people are attacked by others because of their traits or characteristics they cannot change, that is discrimination. And this kind of practice should be stopped.

MIN: I feel that Korea is in a sense xenophobic. As Prof. Cho said, the internet is flooded with hate speech and discrimination. I am wondering if it’s right to ban or punish people for their discriminatory or racist remarks. I personally think that issues like that will be resolved more efficiently with community-led efforts to address such problems and to find solutions.

Q Fake news knows no borders. In 2023, there were media reports about the fake news sites operated by Chinese PR companies that were providing stories to Korean news services. The National Intelligence Service said several Chinese companies created those sites to look like online media and spread false news to influence Koreans ahead of the 2024 National Assembly elections. It seems that combating fake news at home isn’t enough.

CHO: Korea is relatively unfamiliar with foreign interference in domestic politics. But other countries have already experienced this. The most well-known case is that of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, when Cambridge Analytica was at the center of attention. Taiwan is another country that has a long history of foreign interference, mostly by China. And it has a program called “humour against rumor”, where government deploys humour to counter baseless rumors and the civil society also provides means for people to report rumors immediately so that they can be fact-checked and to minimize its spread. I would like to highlight how Finland reacted to foreign cognitive warfare. Finland introduced media literacy in the school curriculum and educated children to develop awareness of fake news. I think media literacy is what Korea needs to fight foreign interference in domestic politics.

PARK: I think fake news created by foreign agents is something institutions like the NIS’ counterintelligence department should respond to, as it is linked to national security.

MIN: I agree with professor Park. Fake news created by foreign agents or other entities as part of cognitive warfare to influence the host country is something intelligence agencies should handle. I would like to underline that fake news on platforms created by Big Tech such as Google or Meta, for example, is harder to control. This is because regulations on these global firms can spark a diplomatic rift with the countries of origin. Domestic legislation will reveal its limitations in combating fake news on foreign platforms.

Q Are there any good practices Korea can follow in its effort to combat fake news?

CHO: I would recommend the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) for the Korean government. Korea’s legislation forces large online platforms like Naver, Kakao, Google and Meta to implement reporting systems to handle fake news. These platforms are responsible for finding and filtering false information. However, the DSA focuses on whether reliable reporting, filtering and audit systems are in place on the big platforms.