It’s important to note that defamation laws in Korea are very different from those in the United States and many other countries. Of particular note is the fact that defamation can still be claimed even if facts are used in the related statements, and the fact that the aggrieved party need only show that the statements hurt its reputation and that allegations were made publicly (i.e., widely available to many people).
What the fuck, that’s draconian. “You publicly stated factual information and it hurt my business!”
I am not a fan of American attitudes to what is marketed as free speech, but this does seem extreme.
Although I can see the point of this outside of corporate type stuff. For an individual, one could argue it makes sense. For a corporate entity (or even a private business), no way.
It makes sense to me if you’re talking about information that wasn’t public already. For example if you obtain someone’s private communications and make them public to smear them. This is just stating information that’s publicly available to a large audience. How do news organizations not just constantly get sued for defamation any time they print or state anything negative?
Edit: I assume, anyway. The article doesn’t say anything about this streamer obtaining privileged documents that they used to get this information or anything, so I’m making the assumption that they used publicly available sources.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
What the fuck, that’s draconian. “You publicly stated factual information and it hurt my business!”
I am not a fan of American attitudes to what is marketed as free speech, but this does seem extreme.
Although I can see the point of this outside of corporate type stuff. For an individual, one could argue it makes sense. For a corporate entity (or even a private business), no way.
It makes sense to me if you’re talking about information that wasn’t public already. For example if you obtain someone’s private communications and make them public to smear them. This is just stating information that’s publicly available to a large audience. How do news organizations not just constantly get sued for defamation any time they print or state anything negative?
Edit: I assume, anyway. The article doesn’t say anything about this streamer obtaining privileged documents that they used to get this information or anything, so I’m making the assumption that they used publicly available sources.