The Expanding Reach of “Digital Harassment“: A Recent Supreme Court Ruling on Online Communication
The internet and social media have become integral to modern communication, offering platforms for connection through SNS, online communities, messaging apps, and more. Though,this ease of connection can regrettably facilitate harmful behavior,including online harassment,insults,and sexual harassment. Increasingly, these actions are being legally challenged under the umbrella of “communication media sound” – a term often shortened to “digital harassment” in online discussions.
Legally, “communication media sound” refers to the act of transmitting content – sounds, writings, images, or objects – through communication channels like telephone, mail, or computer, with the intent to cause sexual shame or disgust to oneself or another. This is defined under Article 13 of South Korea’s Special Act on Punishment of Sexual Violence Crimes, and can result in imprisonment or a fine of up to 20 million won.
A key element of this crime is proving that the offending communication reached the intended victim. Traditionally, this meant demonstrating the victim actually viewed the content. However, a recent Supreme Court ruling (Decision 2025do986) has substantially broadened the interpretation of “reaching the other party.”
the case involved a defendant who continued to target a victim on Twitter, using the platform’s “mention” feature (using the “@” symbol to directly address a user) even after being blocked by the victim. While the victim’s block prevented direct notifications, they later accessed the content through an alternate account and filed a complaint. The lower courts initially ruled in favor of the defendant, arguing the block meant the content hadn’t “reached” the victim.
The Supreme Court overturned this decision, establishing a crucial precedent. The court ruled that “reaching the other party” doesn’t solely depend on actual viewing. It also encompasses situations where the victim has the objective ability to recognize the communication.
This means that even if a victim blocks a sender, if they could reasonably access the content through other means (such as using a diffrent account to view a public profile), the act can still be considered “communication media sound.” The Court reasoned that the victim’s later discovery of the content,after the crime was committed,demonstrates the potential for the communication to have caused harm.
This ruling significantly expands the scope of the law, making individuals more accountable for their online actions. It underscores the importance of exercising caution and responsibility when communicating online,as even seemingly indirect communication can be considered a criminal offense.
