[The Editors' Verdict] Freedom of Business vs. Freedom of Expression in Games

When a game user creates a character name using the name of a president or politician, whether to support or mock them, or uses profanity or vulgar words, what legal issues might arise if the game operator prevents the creation of such character names through prohibited word settings? Also, if conversations or posts that infringe on others' honor or privacy appear in in-game chat rooms or related cafe bulletin boards, or if discriminatory conversations or posts that insult or hate specific groups distinguished by gender, region, disability, race, or country of origin appear, can the game operator block such conversations or delete such posts?

From a constitutional perspective, these issues boil down to the freedom of business of the game operator versus the freedom of expression of the game user, ultimately raising the question of how to harmonize these two constitutional values. More specifically, if an individual game operator adopts related policies such as prohibited word settings or post deletions in their terms and conditions, the issue becomes whether such terms should be permitted as part of the operator’s freedom of business or whether they infringe on the game user’s freedom of expression.

If conversations or posts that infringe on others' honor or privacy or insult or hate specific groups are allowed without limit, it is highly likely that free and diverse communication of opinions will become more difficult. Therefore, regulating such expressions is not easily seen as infringing on the game user’s freedom of expression. Moreover, considering the recent intensification of political and ideological factionalism in Korean society, the business risks that such expressions may cause to game operators are likely to increase. In this case, individual game operators can reduce these risks as part of their freedom of business by stipulating prohibited word settings, banning certain posts, and imposing regulatory measures on individual game users who violate these rules in their terms and conditions. The problem arises if individual operators have different standards?

Here, the need for industry-level self-regulation emerges. The Korea Game Policy Self-Regulation Organization, an independent self-regulatory body in the gaming industry, has announced plans to prepare the 'Game Post Operation Policy Guidelines' to protect game users. The 'Game Post Operation Policy Guidelines' will include standards and grounds for restricting inappropriate expressions in games, such as profanity and inappropriate character names.

Industry-level self-regulation of such posts is also a self-regulatory system adopted early on by the Korea Internet Self-Governance Organization (KISO), an internet industry self-regulatory body launched in March 2009 led by internet portals. In fact, since 2012, KISO has operated the 'Naver Search Term Verification Committee,' which performs post-verification of the appropriateness of handling real-time trending search terms and related/auto-complete search terms on the portal Naver. By having an independent third party verify and provide feedback on the appropriateness of deletion handling of real-time trending search terms and related/auto-complete search terms operated by Naver, this highly advanced self-regulatory system aims to balance the freedom of business of portal operators and the freedom of expression of portal users.

In light of such precedents, how about advancing the policies related to prohibited word settings for character names in games and operational policies related to conversations or posts in games into an industry-level self-regulatory system, separate from individual operator-level self-regulation? Given the relatively short history of self-regulation in the gaming industry, it is necessary to positively consider strengthening its self-regulatory capabilities.

Hwang Seong-gi, Professor, Hanyang University Law School

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