The offender who posted derogatory content against the virtual group PLAVE was fined; told to pay 100,000 KRW to each member. Find out more

Time of India

a day ago

An individual who shared degrading comments online on social media platforms against the virtual boy group PLAVE has been instructed by the court to pay a hefty amount for the damages that they caused due to the comments.
Court rules in favour of PLAVE,
malicious content
poster to pay hefty fine
In the court ruling last month, according to Allkpop, Judge Jang Yoo Jin of the Uijeongbu District Court fined the person who had shared malicious content against PLAVE with a hefty fine. He stated in court that the fine was viable as "The use of avatars in the age of the metaverse may be considered another means for users of technology to express themselves and communicate with others. In that sense, insulting the avatars may be seen as equivalent to insulting the actual user behind the avatar.
"
The judge ruled in the hearing that every member of the group is going to be paid 100,000 KRW each by the offender as a damages fee.
What happened?
The offender, who has not been named, took to their social media accounts and shared derogatory and malicious content against the members of the virtual boy group as well as the people behind these avatars. The incident occurred in July last year, and since then, the agency of the boy group has filed a lawsuit against the offender.
At the time of the first court hearing, the offender made their statement by saying that the comments were not targeted towards real people and could not be used for prosecution against them. They shared that the comments "were not directed at the real-life individuals behind the virtual characters; therefore, they cannot be considered accounts of offence."
This claim, however, was dismissed and refuted by the judge, who stated in court that "An individual can still be offended even when their real names or any specific names referring to that individual or group are not used.
Furthermore, if others can identify the individual based on context, it must be seen as an account of offence against that specific individual."
The judge then put in his final concluding statement in the court hearing, stating that If the identity of the avatar user is widely known or public information, accounts of offence committed against the avatar must be seen as equivalent to accounts of offence committed against the real-life user. In the case of PLAVE, regardless of the agency's current stance or policies, the real-life identities of the members have become information readily available to the masses.
When considering the fact that 'B' also committed the offenses in question with that information in mind, it must be concluded that 'B' specifically targeted the plaintiffs."