President Yoon Suk-yeol delivers a speech at the South Korean government's Liberation Day ceremony in Seoul on August 15. (©Kyodo)
Following his 2022 election, many had high hopes for South Korea's conservative Yoon Suk-yeol Administration regarding free speech and open discourse. So far, these expectations remain unmet.
Compared to his progressive predecessor, Moon Jae In, Yoon has shown more support for free speech, particularly for critics of North Korea (DPRK) or of South Korea's anti-Japan narrative. Additionally, the courts have partly followed his lead.
On 26 September 2023, South Korea's Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional a Moon-supported law criminalizing the launching of propaganda leaflets into North Korea. The court found it an excessive restriction on free speech, mostly affecting defectors.
Likewise, during the Moon Administration, several professors were prosecuted and convicted of criminal defamation for challenging the narrative that Japanese soldiers abducted Korean comfort women. Nevertheless, on 26 October 2023, the Supreme Court took a different approach and acquitted Sejong University professor Park Yuha, author of Comfort Women of the Empire, of criminal defamation.
"There are no circumstances indicating that [Park Yuha] violated the standard research ethics or belittled the dignity of the victims by infringing their right to self-determination and freedom of privacy and confidentiality," it declared.
A Double-edged Sword
However, more freedom for critics of North Korea and of the anti-Japan narrative has been accompanied by less for critics of Yoon's anti-North Korea policies. Yoon's prosecutors have vigorously enforced the controversial National Security Law (NSL), including the Article 7 prohibition on pro-DPRK speech.
Prosecutors charged a small publisher for reprinting Kim Il Sung's memoirs in April 2021. In July 2022, Seoul Metropolitan police raided the office and home of pro-unification Christian pastor Jung Dae Il for publishing and sharing allegedly pro-North Korea material. Although heavy-handed, these governmental actions cited specific violations of the law, that is, Article 7 of the NSL.
The most recent government action is less dramatic but more arbitrary. Korean-American peace activist Christine Ahn was denied entry without explanation.
Silencing Activists?
Ahn, co-founder of feminist peace groups Women Cross DMZ and Korea Peace Now, was barred from boarding an Asiana flight to South Korea from Honolulu on October 30, 2024. Korean immigration authorities had issued an entry ban against her. She was scheduled to give a keynote speech on November 2 at the International Youth Forum Peace Leader 2024. It was hosted by the Gyeonggi Peace Education Center in Paju, Gyeonggi Province.
Ahn also planned to meet with Korean journalists, scholars, peace activists, members of the National Assembly, and officials from the United States and Canadian embassies in Korea. She declared, "It is very concerning that Korea, a democratic country, is trying to silence activists working for peace and democracy."
In 2017, Ahn received a similar entry ban from the conservative Park Geun Hye administration, citing national interests and public safety. Two years earlier, in May 2015, Ahn organized the Women's March for Peace on the Korean Peninsula across the DMZ with some 30 female peace activists.
The North Korean Workers' Party's official newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, reported that Ahn had praised Kim Il Sung's family while visiting his birthplace, although Ahn refuted the report. Moon Jae In's succeeding government lifted the ban, and Ahn returned to Korea in 2022 without incident.
Free Speech vs National Security
Increasing inter-Korea tensions, fueled by North Korea's military alliance with Russia and its intervention in Ukraine, likely heightened South Korean conservatives' sensitivity. They became more attuned to any speech or individual allegedly supportive of North Korea.
Still, in a liberal democracy, national security should not justify limitations on free speech more extensive than what is credibly necessary for public safety. Additionally, any limitation should be justified with a public explanation based on legal, non-arbitrary grounds.
There should not be silence and seemingly arbitrary decision-making. Freedom is a universal principle for all persons, not selectively benefiting one's friends and denied to one's enemies.
An entry ban can devastate any foreign citizen with economic or social ties to the country. It imperils one's employment and loved ones. When justified by national security laws, broadly and arbitrarily applied, it becomes a tool of authoritarian states to suppress dissent. A clear example of this is seen in Hong Kong.
On behalf of scholars concerned about civic and academic freedoms in South Korea, we urge supporters of freedom to raise Christine Ahn's case with the Yoon Administration. We also call for a clear rationale regarding her entry ban.
RELATED:
- INTERVIEW | Byun Hee-jae Fights for Press Freedom in South Korea
- INTERVIEW | Why Sue Yoon Suk-Yeol? Veteran Journalist Explains His Case
- In South Korea, Anti-Japan Backlash Hampers Push for Better Relations
Author: Joseph Yi
Joseph Yi is an associate professor of political science at Hanyang University (Seoul). Shaun O'Dwyer is an associate professor researching moral and political philosophy at Kyushu University (Japan). This essay is also endorsed by Alexandre Erler, Associate Professor in Philosophy at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University (Taipei). They are founding members of Hx East Asia Community (2022), a community of Heterodox Academy.
