"Regulation Is Not a Cure-All, We Must Change Assembly Culture First"... Expert's View on the Amendment [Controversial Assembly Act]

④ Party and government push for legal amendments focusing on strengthening sanctions
Debate over potential infringement of fundamental rights
National consensus must be prioritized

Editor's NoteThe freedom of assembly and association is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the inconvenience caused by assemblies has created cracks in the public consensus as it conflicts with another fundamental right?the pursuit of happiness. There are also assemblies that exploit loopholes in lax laws. Asia Economy examines various debates and alternatives surrounding the Assembly and Demonstration Act (ADA) over four installments.

Discussions on amending the Assembly and Demonstration Act (ADA) have emerged as a key issue in the 22nd National Assembly. The ruling party and government cite the "citizens' right to tranquility" as grounds for banning late-night assemblies and strengthening noise regulations. On the other hand, opposition parties and labor groups argue that the constitutionally guaranteed "freedom of assembly and demonstration" must not be infringed. It is a critical time to find a solution that can bridge the gap between the two sides. Asia Economy has gathered opinions from experts across various fields regarding the ADA amendment.

According to the National Assembly Legislative Information System as of the 29th, a total of eight amendment bills related to the ADA have been proposed. The core issues of these bills fall into three main categories: strengthening noise regulations for assemblies, banning late-night assemblies, and permitting restrictions on assembly locations.

The ruling party and government emphasize strengthening regulations on assembly noise. They argue that the legally permitted noise standards during assemblies and demonstrations are insufficient to minimize the inconvenience that civil society must endure. Accordingly, in August, the enforcement decree of the ADA was revised once to lower the general area noise standard, which allows authorities to order the cessation of loudspeaker use, from 65dB (decibels) to 60dB. Furthermore, an amendment bill has been proposed to strengthen penalties by imposing up to one year of imprisonment or fines up to 2 million KRW for violations of the permitted noise standards during assemblies.

Regarding late-night assemblies, the position is to define prohibited assembly hours through legal amendments due to frequent citizen inconveniences caused by traffic congestion and noise. Currently, bills defining prohibited assembly hours from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. the next day or from midnight to 6 a.m. have been respectively introduced by Representative Seo Ji-young and Representative Yoon Jae-ok of the People Power Party.

The ruling party and government’s strong stance on amending the ADA is largely influenced by the recent increase in illegal assemblies. Concerns have also been raised that assembly culture is regressing due to assemblies circumventing noise regulations and overnight protests lasting one or two days. In fact, according to data obtained by Asia Economy, violations of the ADA have increased annually, rising from 223 cases in 2019 to 400 cases last year.

"Violation of Fundamental Rights" vs. "Public Safety"... Heated Debate Over Late-Night Assemblies

Experts expressed contrasting views on the direction of improving assembly culture through regulation. In particular, some voiced concerns that bills banning assemblies after midnight could significantly infringe on fundamental rights.

Professor Lee Jang-hee of the Department of Law at Changwon National University stated, “Many activities in modern society take place at night. Therefore, banning nighttime assemblies could be interpreted as restricting the freedom of assembly itself.” He added, “Even for late-night assemblies, if there is violence or disorder, current ADA regulations can be applied. It is not lawful to uniformly regulate assembly times when alternatives exist.”

There was also an argument that banning assemblies based on time is inefficient. Professor Lee Hee-hoon of the Department of Law and Police Science at Sunmoon University said, “With the development of social networking services (SNS), peaceful protests can be maintained at night without infringing on others’ legal interests or public order. Peaceful candlelight assemblies also have the advantage of enhancing the effectiveness of assemblies.” He added, “Since assemblies can be sufficiently held in ways that do not disturb others’ tranquility by utilizing nighttime, banning assemblies solely based on time is not reasonable.”

On the other hand, some experts emphasized the need for a total ban to ensure public safety. They argued that the pain citizens must endure in guaranteeing the freedom of assembly is considerable. Professor Lee Geon-soo of the Department of Police Science at Baekseok University said, “The right of citizens to live a stable life is also an important value that must be guaranteed. The freedom of assembly should not be unconditionally prioritized when the value of life that humans should enjoy is not guaranteed.”

Widespread Loopholes, Need to Raise Noise Penalties... Calls for Cultural Improvement First

Regarding noise regulations for assemblies, opinions were raised that the level of penalties is excessively low. There are even assemblies that exploit loopholes to circumvent noise measurement methods, making it urgent to strengthen sanctions.

Professor Lee Woong-hyuk of the Department of Police Science at Konkuk University said, “During the measurement of equivalent noise levels by the police, the average decibel (dB) value is calculated, so some assemblies initially shout loudly and then reduce volume to lower the average, which is a loophole widely used. Overseas, problems are solved by restricting loudspeaker use or implementing a permit system. Korea should apply similar methods and strictly enforce decibel standards.”

However, there were also arguments emphasizing cultural improvement over sanctions. Professor Lee Jang-hee said, “Currently, legal noise standards for assemblies are stricter than those for everyday noise, so the argument to strengthen regulations only on assemblies is contradictory. We should move toward reducing noise through cultural improvement rather than legal regulation.”

Limitations of Uniform Regulation... Priority Should Be Building Public Consensus

Experts advised approaching the issue from the perspective of social ethics and education rather than banning and regulating assemblies. They also expressed concern that the currently proposed ADA amendments are pushing the conflict between citizens’ right to tranquility and freedom of assembly. They emphasized that the National Assembly should prioritize efforts to build public consensus on improving assembly culture rather than focusing on bans.

Participants are confronting the police during a march at the National Workers' Rally of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) held last April in the Sungnyemun area of Jung-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News

Professor Jang Young-soo of Korea University Law School said, “Until now, the focus has been on regulating and banning assemblies. Efforts to improve assembly culture itself have been lacking.” He added, “The most important thing is education for citizens. Through guidelines on assemblies and demonstrations, a healthy assembly culture should be established.”

Professor Lee Jang-hee pointed out that the current ADA amendment bills focus solely on the level of regulatory strength rather than improving assembly culture. He said, “The National Assembly is currently discussing only how much to strengthen or weaken regulations within the existing framework. The idea of changing the paradigm of assembly culture is missing.” He continued, “Rather than debating which assemblies to ban, it is first necessary to find a balance within civil society. A social culture that tolerates and understands assemblies one does not sympathize with must be fostered. A shift in thinking is needed so that the issue is not approached solely from the perspective of law and regulation.”