[Clean General Election] 'Jeol○bal-i · Woe○bak-i'... No Sanction Methods for Politicians Who Repeatedly Use Hate Speech

Controversy Over Former Lawmaker's Derogatory Remarks About Disabled People
Court Rules It Is Difficult to Consider as Personal Insult to Disabled Person
Concerns Over Derogatory Remarks About Disabled People Ahead of General Election

On the 28th of last month, the Seoul High Court ruled against a disability rights civic group in an appeal case against six former members of the National Assembly who were accused of discriminatory remarks belittling disability characteristics, upholding the first trial's decision. They had used expressions such as 'honey-eaten ○○○' and 'jeol○leg' on social networking services (SNS) from June 2020 to March the following year.

The first trial court judged that the lawmakers' remarks did not constitute discriminatory acts under the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Disabled Persons, reasoning that it was difficult to view the remarks as insults directed at individual persons with disabilities. The second trial court reached the same conclusion as the first trial.

On the 1st, ahead of the 22nd National Assembly election, employees are printing ballots at a printing company in Dongan-gu, Anyang-si, Gyeonggi Province. Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

As the general election race has officially begun, awareness about the use of hate speech by candidates is also increasing. In the past, there have been controversies over disparaging remarks targeting specific groups to rally support. The National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) has urged candidates in this general election to refrain from hate speech, but there are no effective measures to sanction such behavior.

183 Cases of Hate Speech Recorded in Last General Election... Institutional Regulatory Limits Remain

On the 27th of last month, the NHRCK announced that it had monitored 1,101 candidates from 47 political parties during the 21st general election in 2020 and found a total of 183 cases of disparagement against specific groups. When categorizing hate speech cases into 13 themes, there were 22 cases of disability disparagement, 22 cases of disparagement against women, and 22 and 4 cases related to sexual orientation and regional disparagement, respectively. Hate speech targeting victims of the Jeju 4.3 Incident and the Sewol Ferry disaster was also recorded in 7 cases.

Such cases have been repeated in past general elections, but there have been significant limitations in institutionally regulating candidates' use of hate speech during election periods. This is because it is difficult to clearly define hate speech or reach social consensus, and there is a risk of infringing on freedom of expression.

Related Bills Repeatedly Rejected... Difficult to Proceed to Punishment

As a result, legislation related to sanctioning hate speech has been repeatedly discarded. In the 20th National Assembly in 2018, a bill regulating hate speech proposed by former Minister of the Interior and Safety Kim Boo-kyum as a member of the National Assembly was withdrawn less than a month after its submission. In the same year, former Bareunmirae Party lawmaker Shin Yong-hyun also proposed an amendment to the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection to classify hate speech as illegal information and block its distribution, but this was also withdrawn within a month.

Currently, there are no proper means to restrict hate speech. Under current law, to apply charges such as insult or defamation to a hate speech speaker, it must be proven that the remarks were directed at a specific individual or group. Defamation charges do not apply when hate speech targets an unspecified large number of persons with disabilities or specific races and religions.

The courts also tend to issue recommendations for reconciliation when hate speech lawsuits are filed. For example, in 2020, the Seoul Central District Court issued a recommendation for reconciliation to both parties in an appeal case where 61 Chinese-Korean plaintiffs sued the production company of the film 'Midnight Runners' for damages.

At that time, the plaintiffs demanded 100 million won in damages, claiming that the production company depicted Chinese-Koreans as a criminal group, violating their personal rights and rights not to be discriminated against. However, the first trial court ruled against the plaintiffs, stating, "The overall impression the film gives to the audience cannot be seen as hateful toward the Joseonjok group."

Therefore, there are calls for the election commission to play a more significant role. Park Han-hee, a lawyer from the public interest human rights lawyers' group Hope Making Law, said, "Under current law, unless the plaintiff and defendant accept a recommendation for reconciliation and reach an agreement, there are no Supreme Court precedents punishing speakers who use hate speech without specifying groups or individuals," adding, "The election commission needs to actively take steps such as sending official letters to candidates urging them to refrain from hate speech in advance or strongly requesting restraint when candidates disparage specific groups."