Talk:Crime of contempt

Similarity with libel law in general and UK libel law in particular?
This sounds a lot like a broadly defined libel law and one notorious example of a European variant is the UK libel law, to the extent that the access of foreign suitors had to be curtailed in revisions of the laws in the 2000s and 2010s to limit Depending on how South Korea applies its law in practice, it might also have parallels with  and  ScepticWombat (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The law is not about defamation, but about insults. In Korea, there are laws that criminalize defamation, but in other concepts, there are laws that punish insults individually. This means that in public and performing places, such as the Internet, severe verbal abuse or offensive expressions can be used against certain objects. It is a bad law that can be punished even if it does not fall into the category of defamation that undermines social reputation.--BluePink (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure that this necessarily makes much of a difference in practice as some libel laws also encompass insults, so it may simply be that what is split into two, separate laws in South Korea is lumped together as one, broader libel law in other countries. Again, UK libel law is infamous for its broadness and its tendency to favour the plaintiff and has been used for such purpose (though not always successfully) to sue such satirical magazines as Private Eye, basically because some butt of a joke felt personally insulted. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem is that they sued ordinary netizens, not publications. Also, in Korea, unlike Britain, "insult" acts are subject to criminal punishment as well as civil lawsuits and can go to jail. (however, it usually ends with a fine.)--BluePink (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that South Korea, unlike Britain, is capable of "criminal lawsuits" rather than civil lawsuits in 'insult'. And category of opponents who can sue is much wider than in the UK. The number of people who can sue is also much wider than in the U.K. It is not for nothing that the U.N. is alarmed.--BluePink (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Article title and naming
The various phrases given in the first sentence aren't common English phrases, and this makes the article seem a bit awkward and strange. The basic idea behind this article is valid, but English-language sources use terms such as "criminal defamation" or "defamation law" for the South Korean legislation. Maybe the article should be renamed or rewritten to match the standard English usage? Reports and papers such as these could be used as references. --Annanoon (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think the title is wrong. The law is a crime against insults in the South Korea. Laws related to defamation in South Korea exist separately.--BluePink (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Dumb insolence
Where would this fit in to 'crime of contempt'? Anna Livia (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Laws related to defamation exist separately. The law deals with 'Insult' not 'defamation'. You can change the title if I misselect the title.--BluePink (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)