Internet defamation

Internet defamation, online defamation or cyberlibel (인터넷 명예훼손/网上 名譽毁損) is an online or Internet-based communication that discredits or causes shame to an individual or business.

Though Internet defamation is not a specific criminal offence, misdemeanor or tort, but it has led a number of people, including celebrities like Choi Jin-sil, to have shame or even commit suicide. So it has been argued for the Internet service providers (ISPs, 정보통신서비스제공자) to take effective measures to stop or take down such defamative postings on the Internet.

Key words
Internet defamation, cyberlibel, privacy violation, ISPs, dispute mediation

Responsibility of ISPs
When the defamed party requests the ISP to delete the defamative information or posting of his/her denial by explaining the infringement upon his/her privacy and reputation, the ISP shall, without delay upon the receipt of such request, take down such information or take necessary provisional measures, and notify such facts to the applicant and the publisher of such posting under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communication Networks Utilization and Data Protection, etc. (the "ICN Act", 정보통신망 이용촉진 및 정보보호 등에 관한 법률)

In the United States, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit held in Zeran v. AOL that each of the plaintiff’s claims was barred by the CDA, holding that Section 230 "creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service."

However here in Korea, the ISP may be liable to damages to the defamed party.

In this connection, the user had been required to use his/her real name when signing up at ISP's website subject to the relevant provisions of the ICN Act until the Constitutional Court held such provisions were unconstitutional in August 2012.

Who you are matters
If the defamed party is a public figure, e.g., celebrity, movie star, talent, professonal sports player, he/she must prove actual malice amounts to lible or slander in the public eye. Otherwise, private citizens are not burdened with materializing proof of malice.

Internet Defamation Dispute Mediation
The Internet defamation may be stopped, and remedied, if necessary, by compensation of damages to the defamed party. The Korea Communications Standards Commission (KCSC, 방송통신심의위원회) revised its rule in June 2012 that the applicant complaining privacy violation or defamation may request the dispute mediation not knowing the publisher's exact address except e-mail address.

When a citizen is suffering any privacy violation or defamation owing to the Internet-posted information, he/she may file his/her complaint with the Internet Defamation Dispute Mediation Panel (명예훼손분쟁조정부) in the Korea Communications Standards Commission. The dispute mediation panel will handle such privacy violation and defamation cases via mediations before both parties.

The Internet Defamation Dispute Mediation Panel decided or processed a total of 157 cases on privacy violation and defamation for the past three years since 2010. The Panel was requested to inform the personal information including the name, address, etc. of the violator in 658 cases, when the complainant did not know such information of the violator necessary for the filing of civil/criminal lawsuit.

Prospects
KCSC (방송통신심의위원회) processed for the first half of 2012 (cf. January - June 2011):
 * Giving advice on 411 (364) violations in the cyberspace including 257 (210) cases on the Internet defamation;
 * Dealing with 49 (68) cyberslander cases;
 * Giving advice on cybercrimes including 8 (7) cases of sex violence, 16 (15) cases of stalking, etc.

Defamation took place frequently at Internet cafes (92 incidents, 22.4%), next at bulletin boards (82 cases, 20%), blogs (30 cases, 7.3%), then during games (20 cases), mobile phones (19 cases), chatting (10 cases), mini-homepages (9 cases), messangers (2 cases). It was noteworthy that mobile phone-related defamation cases sharply increased. Since the Constitutional Court declared the real name postings unconstitutional, this kind of defamation through vicious replys, privacy violation is expected to increase.