"Only 17 out of 89 Cases Blocked"..Digital Prison 'Myeonjoebu' Controversy

KCSC Leaves Digital Prison Site Up
Blocks 17 Cases Violating Information and Communications Network Act and Child and Youth Protection Act
Concerns Over Excessive Regulation

[Asia Economy Reporter Koo Chae-eun] The government’s decision to leave the Digital Prison site?which arbitrarily discloses the personal information of sex offenders and has sparked controversy over “private punishment”?open without shutting it down has led to ongoing debate.

While some criticize this as granting a “get-out-of-jail-free card” for operating the Digital Prison, others argue that since only illegal content on the site will be selectively blocked, the decision is not problematic.

Site Not Shut Down, Only 17 Pieces of Information Blocked

According to the Korea Communications Standards Commission (KCSC) on the 15th, during an emergency review held the previous day, the commission decided to request correction for 17 posts on the Digital Prison. The KCSC blocked 7 posts violating the Information and Communications Network Act and 10 posts violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Youth against Sexual Abuse, while leaving the remaining 72 posts intact. The site itself was not shut down; out of 89 personal information posts uploaded, only 17?19% of the total posts?were blocked. The KCSC plans to request domestic telecom providers to block some personal information and ask overseas server operators to delete the information.

The decision was met with surprise both inside and outside the KCSC. Since the Digital Prison carries a high risk of illegality and is under police investigation, and with recent cases of innocent victims emerging, many had predicted the government would decide to shut down the site. On the 8th, Han Sang-hyuk, chairman of the Korea Communications Commission, said regarding the Digital Prison, “This is something that cannot happen in a civilized society,” adding, “It is private punishment and the content itself is defamatory. We will quickly find ways to block access to the problematic site.”

However, the KCSC explained that it decided not to block access to the entire site because “blocking the whole site raises concerns of excessive regulation, and the goal can be achieved through reviewing and addressing problematic individual posts.”

Digital Prison, Only Partial Blocking... How Should This Be Viewed?

Experts are divided in their opinions. Some criticize the site for lacking legitimacy as it represents “private sanctions” outside judicial authority, while others argue that shutting down the entire site would be excessive regulation. Professor Yoon Sung-ok of the Department of Media and Visual Studies at Kyonggi University said, “We need to take a closer look at the criteria used to distinguish between illegal and non-illegal posts on the Digital Prison,” but added, “Only content violating laws such as the Act on the Protection of Children and Youth and the Information and Communications Network Act was blocked, and there likely was no basis to block other content. Blocking only information with illegal implications is a reasonable decision.”

Professor Han Sang-hee of Konkuk University Law School stated through the media, “The power to impose criminal penalties is recognized as a state criminal authority. This is because private revenge or punishment would lead to social disorder,” adding, “The emergence of the Digital Prison signals flaws in the criminal law system, but even so, private punishments such as disclosing personal information should be approached with caution. The Digital Prison places emphasis on stigmatizing and punishing rather than serving a public interest like raising social awareness, so it is difficult to recognize its legitimacy.”

Meanwhile, the Digital Prison, which was launched in July, gained attention by arbitrarily disclosing personal information of perpetrators involved in serious crimes such as sex offenses and child abuse. The site stated its purpose as “feeling the limits of lenient punishment for heinous criminals and directly disclosing their personal information to subject them to social judgment.” However, a university student accused as a perpetrator committed suicide claiming innocence, and an innocent university professor’s personal information was exposed as a perpetrator, leading to ongoing criticism.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.