Censoring Speech in Democracies: South Korea

In South Korea, both conservatives and progressives restrict allegedly harmful speech, claiming to protect democracy and individual rights. Conservatives restrict “pro-communist” and pro-LGBT speech, while progressives target racist slurs and especially “far-right” speech supporting Japanese colonial (1910–1945) or anti-communist (1948–1987) regimes. These controversial restrictions contribute to a global debate among proponents of liberal-democratic values (“liberals” or “democrats”) about the relationship between procedural and substantive rights and norms (PRN, SRN). Procedural refers to formal-legal rights (e.g., free speech) and non-legal norms (impartial reporting) associated with fair procedures. Substantive refers to rights and norms associated with fair substantive outcomes, such as nondiscrimination and equal dignity.

Proponents of a zero-sum perspective, including victim-rights and militant-democracy advocates, believe illiberal actors exploit PRN to harm vulnerable groups and/or democratic institutions. Therefore, liberal procedural rights (e.g., free speech) and norms (objectivity) should not be equally applied to harmful speakers. Conversely, positive-sum advocates argue that uniformly respecting procedural rights and norms for all persons (including allegedly illiberal ones) better protects everyone’s overall rights (procedural and substantive). Despite South Korea’s transition to civilian-led democracy, self-identified democrats, both conservative and progressive, continue to restrict PRN for certain speakers. Other democrats oppose such selective, and often arbitrary, restrictions. The ongoing contestation among zero- and positive-sum liberals shapes the meaning and direction of liberal democracy in South Korea.