Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Swampfox10mm]

Kudos to the gov't for removing some online posts this year that were very anti-foreigner. But I have to ask... why does it take the gov't to remove such things? Must have been on a very negative website?

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/04/117_109196.html

[PatrickGHBusan]

If they (government) starts enforcing these things they will need to hire a lot of people to monitor sites, determine what is acceptable and what is not....

That is no easy task and it will certainly open up the field of legal complaints against the government limiting free press or the right to express oneself freely.

Add to this the always fun layer of site hosting (ie where a site is hosted impacts the laws that apply) and you get a real mess....

I am curious to see how this pans out.

[Captain Corea]

I think that calling for someone to be killed might just cross over the line of "the right to express oneself freely"

[nathanrutledge]

Reminds me of a conversation I had with an extremely high level 8th grader. He asked me if it was a crime to threaten to kill the President of the US. He told me that in Korea it was only a crime IF the government could prove you had the ability to pull it off. So if you said you were going to shoot the K president, if you didn't have access to a gun, it was legal to say. (This kid was very high level and talked about the most random of stuff).

Anyway, I asked my co worker about this and she confirmed that yes, if you couldn't realistically pull it off, you could say it.

THAT BEING SAID

As a foreigner, I'm obviously leery of these kinds of threats. At the same time, I am loathe to censor even the most hateful of speech and from what I know, the LAWS in Korea are a bit different. The enforcement of said laws is a different matter, but either way - censorship of anything makes me... uncomfortable - even when it is particularly repugnant.

[crescent]

[fermentation]

[nathanrutledge]

[goreality]

Hate speech should be a crime, there is no benefit to society and probably more harm than good.
Internet censorship is a bit much here, but then again so are some of the netizens.

[fermentation]

[Nismo]

Good on them to censor hate speech directed at non-ethnic-Koreans. That's as it should be. There is no country with a no-constraints system of free speech. Even a country as humble as the U.S. that selflessly lifts itself up as a shining example to the world has categorical exceptions to the freedom of speech, including incitement, obscenity, offensive speech, and threats.

[Stan Rogers]

The only thing that got killed was an internet posting by a crazy person.

Good on the government for doing this.

[bigverne]

[nathanrutledge]

But where do we draw the line?

If I say the Chinese smell bad, is that offensive? Hateful? Obscene? Who decides if it is?

Sure, saying that we should organize a mob and murder people, that is clearly at one end of the spectrum. But what if I say that we should expel all foreigners because the steal jobs, or they speak their foreign language too loudly? Where do we draw the line?

If the article in the Times is accurate, they removed posts that ranged from "these people smell funny" to "let's murder these people." If we want to be accurate, it is not inaccurate to say that a certain group of people smells different/funny - different soaps, different foods, different hygiene standards - so at what point do we say something is accurate and okay to saying no, it's offensive?

I'd rather err on the side of personal liberty.

But the bigger argument, and the one fermentation brings up - what about when it's our speech that is censored? If we badmouth a politician, or a bad hakwon, or some other issue?

The problem is not what these people say, but what is causing these thoughts and beliefs. Erasing the speech does not erase the beliefs.

[The Cosmic Hum]

[pegasus64128]