Publication

By What Standard Do Politicians Deal with History-Themed Creative Works?

This issue brief examines the demands made by politicians and related organizations after the release of the film "Assassins" on September 23, 2026, namely a halt to screenings, a search and seizure of the production company, the director's appearance at the parliamentary audit, an apology, and a punishment act, against the institutions of current Korean law. The National Assembly can legislate and lawfully require witnesses and reference witnesses to appear; a screening ban on grounds of reputation is sought by the injured party and examined by a court; a search and seizure requires a prosecutor's request and a court warrant; defamation of the dead requires the assertion of false facts and a complaint by relatives; and the rating system has no criterion for historical distortion. In five injunction cases since 2005 the courts never conclusively granted a total ban, and the Supreme Court tolerates dramatization in commercial film unless it amounts to a deliberate expression of malice. Since 2005 both camps have used similar means, including presidential viewings, public criticism and legislation, against different works. In the Institute's survey (RIO 2026-07, n=1,017), 58.2% saw the film's raising of doubts as closer to historical distortion and 58.3% said politicians' standards for objecting to expression are not consistent. In May the Democratic Party said the "Tank Day" promotion was not freedom of expression, and in September it said requiring this film director to appear at the parliamentary audit chills freedom of expression. In place of a conclusion, the brief asks the President, the Democratic Party and the filmmakers by what standard they distinguish the two and what the filmmakers will do to explain fact from hypothesis.