South Korea’s revised internet legislation now threatens to restrict lawful American speech across global digital platforms. The updated Information and Communications Network Act hands regulators sweeping powers that critics say could force U.S. tech companies to censor content protected by the First Amendment.
The law targets “false or manipulated information, defamatory content, and online hate speech.” Seoul officials claim the measure addresses social harms from the digital environment, but opponents argue its vague standards create powerful incentives for platforms to over-remove content. Facing enormous legal liability, companies may choose to suppress legitimate expression rather than risk penalties.
This development fits a troubling international pattern. Germany’s Network Enforcement Act already requires social media firms to delete certain unlawful material within tight deadlines. Britain’s Online Safety Act imposes broad platform duties regarding harmful content. Australia has expanded its own Online Safety Act and enacted a world-first ban on under-16 social media accounts.
Meanwhile, the European Union’s Digital Services Act continues to impose transparency, risk assessment, and content moderation mandates on major platforms. Predictions made when that law was proposed have largely materialized, hampering innovation and distorting competition across the digital economy.
U.S. lawmakers have responded. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and several colleagues sent a letter to Korea’s Media and Communications Commission expressing concern that the law pressures American companies to remove speech constitutionally protected at home. They specifically cited YouTube as an apparent target. The letter followed a Judiciary Committee report alleging discriminatory treatment of U.S. technology firms, including Coupang, violating the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.
ALEC has approved the GRANITE Act, a model policy designed to shield Americans from foreign censorship laws. It bars state courts from enforcing foreign judgments based on such laws and prohibits state agencies from cooperating with their implementation.
As global online regulation accelerates, American policymakers face an urgent choice. They must protect constitutional rights from foreign overreach or accept a world where other nations dictate what Americans may say online.
