American Professor Held for Questioning By Korean Police Over Allegations He Defamed President Lee
Here is something to keep in mind that freedom of speech in the U.S. does not apply in South Korea. If you say something in the U.S. it can be used to arrest you if you travel to South Korea:
Police plan to question Korean American professor Morse Tan this week over his alleged defamation of President Lee Jae Myung, sources said Tuesday.
The questioning will take place at the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency at 10 a.m. Wednesday over allegations that the professor at U.S.-based Liberty University falsely accused Lee of involvement in murder as a teenager.
Tan allegedly made the claim at a press conference in the United States last year. He also claimed Lee had been sent to a juvenile detention center for the crime.
You can read more at the link.
So @GIKorea does freedom of speech give you the right to defame someone without solid evidence to support your claims?
Rights come with responsibilities. Freedom of speech is a fundamental liberty, but that doesn’t absolve anyone of the responsibility to use it honestly and responsibly.
Then again, judging by the behavior of right wingers, abusing free speech to spread misinformation and falsehoods seems to be your thing.
clown commie lee trying to cover up the truth.
@Korean Person, I understand you are just trolling, but I will indulge you for a minute. Being Chinese Fifty Cent Army I understand English is your second language, but I wrote nothing about whether Tan’s claims are correct or not. I wrote be careful what you say in the U.S. because the Korean government can use it to arrest you if you travel to Korea as Tan is finding out.
Ah yes.
@GIKorea is showing his true racist colors.
This says a lot about @GIKorea’s attitude and thinking on this issue.
In effect, he’s saying that Tan’s claims are correct, but that Tan shouldn’t say so publicly because people in Korea might go to the police and press charges for defamation. (This is what it is. He got hit with a defamation charge and as per normal procedure here in Korea, police is investigating the charge)
If he were truly impartial, he would have said something along the lines of: “Don’t make allegations unless you have evidence.”
Instead, @GIKorea presents himself as neutral while implicitly supporting Tan’s claims.
And, true to form, he’s unwilling to acknowledge that position openly or be honest about where he stands.
ChichenHead’s Principles for a Fair Defamation System
Defamation should generally be a civil matter, not a criminal offense.
The purpose of defamation law should be to compensate injured parties, not to imprison speakers.
Truth should be an absolute defense against defamation claims.
A person should never be held liable for accurately reporting facts, even if those facts are embarrassing or damaging.
The burden of proof should rest on the person claiming defamation.
The claimant should prove that the statement was false and caused actual harm.
Honest mistakes should be treated differently from deliberate lies.
A person who reasonably believed a statement to be true should face less liability than someone who knowingly spread false information.
Public debate should receive stronger protection than private gossip.
Discussion of public officials, public figures, public spending, public safety, and matters of public concern should receive broad free-speech protection.
Opinion should not be treated as defamation.
Statements of opinion, interpretation, criticism, satire, or value judgment should generally be protected unless they falsely assert specific facts.
Actual damages should be demonstrated.
Defamation awards should be tied to real, measurable harm rather than speculation.
Lawsuits should not be used to silence criticism.
Courts should have procedures to quickly dismiss meritless defamation cases intended to intimidate or financially burden speakers.
Knowingly false defamation claims should carry consequences.
If a plaintiff knowingly files a defamation lawsuit over statements they know to be true, courts should be able to award attorney fees, court costs, and other sanctions to the defendant.
Public records and official documents should be protected sources.
Accurate reporting of court records, government documents, and official proceedings should not create defamation liability.
Corrections should reduce liability.
Prompt and good-faith corrections should be considered when determining damages.
The law should distinguish reputation from embarrassment.
The purpose of defamation law is to protect against false harm to reputation, not to protect people from truthful criticism, exposure, or public scrutiny.
Defamation law should balance two rights.
Individuals have a right to protect their reputation from falsehoods. Society has a right to discuss, criticize, investigate, and expose matters of public importance.
The problem with your argument is that you’re assuming the accusation is false before it has been proven false. Defamation laws exist to protect people from knowingly false statements, not to shield public officials from scrutiny or criticism.
In a democracy, the burden shouldn’t be on citizens, journalists, or academics to prove government misconduct beyond all doubt before they can raise concerns. If that were the standard, many genuine scandals would never come to light. Allegations are investigated precisely because evidence is often disputed or incomplete at the outset.
What’s more concerning is the implication that questioning those in power should invite police interrogation. Freedom of speech is not tested when people say popular things.. it is tested when they criticize powerful figures. If the response to controversial speech is state investigation rather than public rebuttal, that raises legitimate concerns about whether defamation laws are being used to protect reputations or suppress dissent.
And as for claiming that “abusing free speech to spread misinformation is a right-wing thing,” that’s simply partisan rhetoric. People across the political spectrum have spread misinformation when it suited their political interests. Turning a debate about free expression into a tribal attack only weakens the argument.
But knowing you’re not even Korean and you’ve already proven yourself to be a far-left libby.. all of this isn’t surprising..
“as per normal procedure here in Korea”
Lol. We believe you bro. The republic of or the democratic peoples’ flavor though?
I agree with chicken head’s points. Especially civil legal recourse to proven dishonest slander.
It’s why Joe Rogan had to threaten to take cnn to court over horse paste accusations instead of waiting until one of them showed up in Texas and interrogating them in an ice bath.
@Korean Person is trolling again. I never said I agree with Tan’s allegation. I have no idea if what he says is true or not. All I am saying is if you are going to make allegations against people in the Korean government while in the U.S. you best not travel to Korea because you could get arrested. Freedom of speech does not apply in Korea even if what was said was said back in the U.S. As this incident shows, the Korean government can still come after you.
You would have had far more credibility if you had simply said, “Don’t make allegations against people in the Korean government without solid evidence.”
It seems the professor that @GIKorea and the Setnaffarians hold dear is refusing to be questioned by the police.
No doubt he has something to hide.
https://www.koreajoongangdaily.com/korea/professor-skips-lee-defamation-questioning/12738084
And for those who are unfamiliar with how the Korean justice system works
https://www.chosun.com/english/national-en/2026/06/23/MIN32BH6ZVE3RD7NYZ4BAU5WQ4/
So much for @GIKorea and the Setnaffarian theory that this was orchestrated by the Korean government and Pres. Lee.
Even the Korean courts agree with the Police
https://biz.chosun.com/en/en-society/2026/06/04/O5LZ5OXCM5BVPF6RHKTQN7Y52A/
The Korean courts also determined that Moses Tan’s claims were false.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/law-crime/20260601/police-seek-exit-ban-on-morse-tan-over-defamation-allegations
And for those Setnaffarians taking issue with the newspaper articles I cited, keep in mind that every one of them came from Korean right-wing publications.
Rejecting those sources would effectively mean rejecting the credibility of media outlets that generally align with their own political perspective.
What are you trying to prove by throwing out bunch of news articles? Btw, Korea Times is more left-leaning.
The Guardian and Hankyoreh are left leaning.
The Korea Times …?
Someone needs to put the crack pipe down.
Yes, I know that about Hankyoreh. It’s not just left leaning. It’s far left.
AI tells me otherwise regarding Korea Times.
The Korea Times is generally considered center to slightly center-left (liberal-leaning) in its editorial orientation, though with some nuance.
In most media bias trackers and comparative analyses:
If Korea Times is a leftist newspaper then why does @GIKorea, who makes no secret of his right wing leanings, post articles from the Korea Times in his blog?
Go check in to your nearest psychiatric center please.
What the supposed Kyopo by the name of Joshua Lee once said
It seems Joshua can’t refute my point so he’s attacking my credibility instead.
Typical right wing tactic.