Amendment to Special Act on May 18 Seeks Harsher Penalties for Historical Distortion

Amendment to Special Act on May 18 Democratization Movement Pushes to Legislate Against Historical Distortion

An amendment to the Special Act on the May 18 Democratization Movement, etc. (hereafter referred to as the "5·18 Special Act") has been proposed in the National Assembly, aiming to strengthen penalties for acts that distort or denigrate the historical truth of the May 18 Democratization Movement. This amendment comes in response to growing societal concerns over recent proliferation of posts on some online communities and social media that mock or defame the May 18 Democratization Movement. It is interpreted as an attempt to establish legal safeguards to protect historical pain and truth.

While the existing 5·18 Special Act includes provisions for penalizing denial or distortion of the May 18 Democratization Movement, the current amendment focuses on expanding its scope to include defamation and insult. Specifically, taking symbolic events like "Starbucks Tank Day" as a catalyst, the core of the amendment is to include explicit slander, mockery, and personal attacks against the May 18 Democratization Movement under legal punishment. This aims to hold individuals more strictly accountable not just for denying historical facts, but also for severely damaging the honor of victims and their bereaved families.

A representative from the Democratic Party of Korea, which led the proposal of the amendment, emphasized the necessity of the revision, stating, "The May 18 Democratization Movement is a historical fact that contributed to the development of democracy in Korea, and acts that denigrate and mock it are enough to incite public outrage." He added, "Regardless of the intent or method, acts that desecrate May 18 must be responded to sternly." Furthermore, it is expected that if this bill passes the relevant standing committee and is finalized by the plenary session of the National Assembly, it will contribute to improving overall societal perception of the May 18 Democratization Movement and preventing historical distortion.

Key Content and Scope of the Amendment

The core of this amendment to the 5·18 Special Act is the expansion of the scope of punishment for acts distorting or denying the truth of the May 18 Democratization Movement to include defamation and insult. Once the amendment passes, acts of posting or disseminating content online or offline that denigrates or distorts individuals, events, or the meaning related to the May 18 Democratization Movement will be subject to legal sanctions. For example, this could include labeling the May 18 Democratization Movement as a "riot," making insulting remarks about the victims, or producing and distributing content that belittles the spirit of the democratization movement.

Specifically, the amendment includes provisions to penalize those who commit acts of denying, distorting, or denigrating the May 18 Democratization Movement, or who defame or insult specific individuals or groups in the process. This suggests that attempts to distort the May 18 Democratization Movement may be considered not merely as debates over historical facts, but as acts that infringe upon the honor of specific individuals and groups and provoke social conflict. Furthermore, if such acts are deemed to pose a risk to public order and safety, courts will be able to impose criminal liability for those actions.

The amendment applies to individuals and organizations that spread false facts or distorted information related to the May 18 Democratization Movement. This can extend beyond online spaces such as internet communities, social media, and blogs, to various forms of expression including print materials, rallies, and lectures. In particular, the focus is on strengthening penalties for defamation and insult through information and communication networks to prevent the dilution or distortion of the truth of the May 18 Democratization Movement due to the indiscriminate spread of false information. Therefore, if the relevant bill is passed, increased caution will be required for the creation and dissemination of May 18-related content online.

Legislative Background and Debate

The proposal of this amendment to the 5·18 Special Act was triggered by the continuous occurrence of defamation and insult cases concerning the May 18 Democratization Movement, primarily online. The emergence of commercial marketing activities like the "Starbucks Tank Day" controversy, which seemed to dilute the historical significance of the May 18 Democratization Movement or mock the victims, increased societal demands to protect historical truth and the honor of related victims. This situation suggests that the May 18 Democratization Movement is not merely a past event but an ongoing object that must be defended for the sake of democratic values. Thus, the ruling party and some civic groups have clearly stated their position that historical distortion must be corrected and the spirit of democracy inherited by strengthening legal penalties for acts that harm the value of the May 18 Democratization Movement.

However, some voices have raised concerns that the amendment could stifle freedom of expression. In particular, it is pointed out that while diverse perspectives on the historical interpretation of the May 18 Democratization Movement may exist, the scope of legal punishment, if not clearly defined, could lead to the suppression of even critical opinions through arbitrary interpretation. A legal professional commented, "If the specific content, scope of application, and penalties of the bill are not clearly stipulated, the possibility of excessive exercise of punitive power cannot be ruled out in future similar incidents." Additionally, there are opinions suggesting that finding a balance between the values of freedom of expression and the protection of historical truth is crucial, and a cautious approach is necessary in amending the law. Furthermore, the recent trend of cautious opinions regarding hasty sanctions in legal judgments related to past events, such as the rejection of an arrest warrant for a former public official booked on charges of "rebellion propaganda," could also be considered during the bill's review process.

As such, the amendment to the 5·18 Special Act faces the challenge of finding societal consensus between two important values: the effort to protect the historical meaning of the May 18 Democratization Movement and disseminate the truth, and the guarantee of freedom of expression. It remains to be seen how these diverse opinions will be fully considered and reconciled during the upcoming legislative review process.

Future Legislative Procedures and Outlook

The amendment to the 5·18 Special Act proposed by the Democratic Party of Korea is scheduled to undergo review by the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee and the plenary session before finalization. Currently, the bill will first go through an initial review process in the relevant standing committees, primarily the Legislation and Judiciary Committee or the Public Administration and Security Committee. Each standing committee will comprehensively review the bill's validity, legal issues, and social impact, and if necessary, hold public hearings to gather opinions from various sectors.

The key challenge in this process will be how the sharp differences in opinions between proponents and opponents, including the controversy over infringement of freedom of expression raised earlier, will be adjusted. The Legislation and Judiciary Committee will closely examine the constitutionality of the bill and its relationship with other laws, and at this stage, amendments may be proposed or the bill may be rejected. If it passes the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, it will finally be tabled in the National Assembly's plenary session and must obtain the consent of a majority of its members to be passed.

At this juncture, it is difficult to predict whether the bill will pass or its exact timeline. This is because the National Assembly's schedule, the dynamics of political circles, and the maturity of public discourse will all play a complex role. However, considering the historical significance of the May 18 Democratization Movement and the ongoing related controversies, legislative discussions are expected to continue for a considerable period. Furthermore, if this amendment is passed, the criteria for judicial judgment on acts of historical distortion and defamation concerning the May 18 Democratization Movement will become clearer, and it may also influence related legal precedents. Ultimately, this legislative attempt will be an important process to legally support society's will to remember and inherit the meaning of the May 18 Democratization Movement.