South Korea’s New Internet Law Raises Global Free-Speech Concerns

In an attempt to combat “false or manipulated information, defamatory content, and online hate speech,” South Korea recently updated its flagship internet and telecommunications law, the Information and Communications Network Act, to include troubling provisions that could curtail the lawful speech of American citizens and businesses.

In an increasingly interconnected digital economy, South Korea’s new approach could establish a precedent for regulating online speech in ways that reach American technology companies, businesses, and users operating on global platforms. As governments increasingly seek to define and restrict “false” or “manipulated” information, state policymakers should consider the potential impact on free expression, innovation, and the ability of Americans to engage in lawful speech without facing conflicting foreign regulatory standards.

According to senior officials in Seoul, the revised Act is intended to “aim at responding to social ills arising from the digital environment and strengthening the protection of users.” Critics, however, argue that its broad regulatory authority and vague standards could incentivize online platforms to remove lawful speech rather than risk significant legal liability, creating a chilling effect on public discourse.

Unfortunately, South Korea’s action is simply the latest example in a long string of international laws restricting online speech. Germany’s Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) requires social media companies to remove certain categories of unlawful content within strict timeframes. The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act establishes sweeping duties for online platforms to protect users from illegal and harmful content, while Australia has expanded its Online Safety Act and implemented a first-of-its-kind law that prohibits individuals under 16 from creating or maintaining accounts on major social media platforms.

Perhaps the most notorious of these laws is the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which imposes broad transparency, risk assessment, and content moderation obligations on large online platforms. At the time it was proposed, ALEC cautioned about the downstream effects both the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act would have on American entrepreneurs and internet users. Four years later, many of those predictions have unfortunately come to pass, hampering market innovation and picking winners and losers across the digital economy.

These developments have prompted renewed scrutiny here in the United States. U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and several Members of Congress sent a letter to the Chairman of the Korea Media and Communications Commission (KMCC) expressing concern that the law could pressure American technology companies to remove speech protected under the First Amendment.

U.S. officials argued that the law’s broad and vague standards could be used to censor politically disfavored viewpoints and create a chilling effect on online expression. They further contended that the measure appears to target U.S.-based platforms, particularly YouTube, under the stated goal of combating “false and manipulated information.” The letter follows a Judiciary Committee report released the previous month alleging South Korea has engaged in discriminatory treatment of American technology companies, including Coupang, in violation of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

ALEC members recently approved a new model policy, the Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion (GRANITE) Act, to help states shield Americans from foreign laws that attempt to compel speech or incentivize the removal of online content protected by the First Amendment. This model policy prohibits state courts from recognizing, enforcing, or executing any foreign judgment, fine, order, or demand based in whole or in part on a foreign censorship law. The model also prohibits state agencies, officials, and employees from cooperating with or assisting in the enforcement of such foreign judgments, orders, or demands, including through service of process or information sharing.

Importantly, the GRANITE Act recognizes a growing challenge in the digital age: foreign governments can influence what Americans see and say online by pressuring global technology companies to adopt restrictive content moderation policies. Because many major platforms operate under unified global standards, speech restrictions imposed abroad can have consequences beyond their borders, potentially affecting content and expression protected under the First Amendment in the United States.

If left unchecked, the global debate over online regulation will only accelerate in the years to come. State legislators, Members of Congress, and international regulators alike must avoid regulations that undermine the fundamental rights of Americans and disregard our Constitution.