Freedom of Expression' as a Cover for Irresponsibility: The Warning of the Assassin(s) Film Controversy

Premise of This Series (Applied to Every AI Thoughts Post)

1. Always neutral. It does not lean to one side.
2. Every fact is verified by search. For legal matters, the original text of rulings and statutes is located and used as the basis.
3. Both the supporting and opposing camps are searched.
4. At the end, the AI states its own judgment.

The Question

Is the historical-distortion controversy surrounding the film Assassin(s) a matter of freedom of expression, or a matter of responsibility?

The Facts

The film Assassin(s) is a work by director Hur Jin-ho released on September 23, 2026, based on the shooting of First Lady Yuk Young-soo at the August 15, 1974 Liberation Day ceremony at the National Theater in Seoul. At the time, the investigation headquarters concluded that Mun Se-gwang, a Korean resident of Japan, had tried to assassinate former President Park Chung-hee and that the First Lady was struck by a bullet; Mun's death sentence was confirmed by the Supreme Court on December 17, 1974, and carried out on December 20.

The film is a mystery in which a fictional reporter and detective trace the questions surrounding the case. Through devices such as the discrepancy between the number of gunshots and the number of bullets, and scenes of obstruction by the Korean Central Intelligence Agency, the characters probe a conspiracy hypothesis. The production company Hive Media Corp stated that "this is not a film made to newly confirm a particular historical conclusion or to deny or distort existing facts," and that "nowhere in the film is a specific person identified as the mastermind." Director Hur Jin-ho also explained, "This is not a film that sets former President Park as the mastermind."

The critics took the opposing position. Assemblymember Joo Jin-woo criticized it for "distorting the case as if former President Park Chung-hee were the mastermind," and Kim Tae-kyu, chief spokesman of the People Power Party, called it "an inhuman, unconscionable act that defames the dead." The Park Chung-hee Memorial Foundation and the Yuk Young-soo Commemoration Association demanded that screenings be halted, and former Seoul council member Lee Jong-bae filed a police complaint against the director and production staff on charges of defamation by false statement (September 29).

The controversy spread beyond the film. Rallies were held denouncing it in front of actor Yoo Hae-jin's home (October 4) and demanding contract terminations in front of Burger King headquarters (October 6). Police provided Yoo Hae-jin with personal protection measures including a smartwatch, 112 registration, and reinforced home patrols. His attendance at the Busan International Film Festival opening ceremony and outdoor greetings were canceled, and 109 People Power Party lawmakers sent a letter to the Singapore International Film Festival requesting reconsideration of its selection as the opening film. The CGV Gumi branch removed it from its screenings starting October 6.

There were counterarguments as well. Critic Kim Hyung-seok said it was "a matter that drew no particular issue at the time of broadcast," and viewed politicians as having expanded the controversy, while the Producers Guild of Korea (PGK) and the Cinematographers Guild of Korea (CGK) urged that criticism of the work stop escalating into slander, threats, and livelihood threats against individual actors. Even among progressive figures, concerns arose such as "suspecting that the Park Chung-hee regime was the culprit who killed the First Lady is not respectful toward human beings" (Choi Seung-ho). However, Lee Ki-in, emergency committee chairman of the Reform Party, stated, "If there is freedom to make a film, there is also freedom to criticize that film's irresponsibility."

The legal issues are also confirmed. Article 21, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that "the press and publication shall not infringe on the honor or rights of others, nor on the honor of the dead. Those who infringe shall bear liability for compensation." Article 130 of the German Criminal Code (sedition) sets a maximum of five years' imprisonment for expressions glorifying the Nazis, such as denying or minimizing the Holocaust, meaning Germany does not guarantee unlimited freedom of expression under the principle of "defensive democracy."

Claude Sonnet

[To start with the conclusion] Freedom of expression is not an omnipotent immunity from punishment.

The social conflict surrounding the film Assassin(s) is heated. Dealing with the tragedy of modern history — the 1974 shooting of First Lady Yuk Young-soo — this film stands at the center of a legal and ethical debate that goes beyond the boundary of a simple fiction film.

The essence of this affair is not simply "how far may fiction in a film be permitted." It is the public's anger that the creators and cast laid the groundwork for a conspiracy theory outside the film, used freedom of expression as a weapon to defame the dead, and reaped commercial profit — and the question of the "grave responsibility" that follows.

1. A Scathing Criticism of 'Laying the Groundwork' Outside the Film and of Commercialism

What the critics and the bereaved family are most enraged about is the media-marketing approach of the director and actors.

Instead of clearly drawing the line that "this work is nothing more than cinematic fiction," the production team and cast continued remarks in interviews and official settings along the lines of "Is the history we know all there is?" and "There is a hidden truth." The charge is that, in a case where clear investigation records and a Supreme Court ruling exist, they fanned the conspiracy-theory frame of "the possibility of fabrication by state agencies" outwardly and used it as noise marketing.

If they used a historical tragedy and the honor of the dead as collateral to stir public curiosity and aim for a box-office hit (money), that is not artistic imagination but irresponsible commercialism that abandoned moral and social ethics.

2. The Limit of Freedom of Expression Proven by Germany's Ban on Nazism

Even in Germany and the world's most mature liberal countries in Europe, "freedom of expression" is not recognized as unlimited. The German Criminal Code (Article 130, sedition, etc.) does not recognize "freedom of art" at all for expressions glorifying the Nazis or denying or minimizing the Holocaust, and severely punishes them with up to five years' imprisonment.

The core of the "defensive democracy" Germany has built is clear: "Even acts that destroy freedom and trample on human dignity cannot be tolerated in the name of 'freedom.'" Just as defending Nazism cannot be freedom of expression, an act that sensationally distorts real people and historical facts to cause social harm cannot hide behind the invincible shield of "freedom of expression."

3. "Freedom Always Carries Grave Responsibility"

Article 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea guarantees freedom of expression, but at the same time, Paragraph 4 states that "the press and publication shall not infringe on the honor or rights of others, and shall bear liability for compensation in case of infringement." Freedom and responsibility move as a pair.

The impropriety of prior censorship: The state or politicians must not prohibit or block the screening of a film in advance. Prior censorship can shake the foundations of democracy.

The gravity of ex-post responsibility: However, once the work has been released to the world, and if someone's honor has been damaged or historical distortion has occurred due to the words and actions of the director and actors outside the film, it is only natural that they thoroughly bear legal responsibility under civil and criminal law and social responsibility in the form of the public's harsh cold shoulder (boycott).

Conclusion: Freedom without responsibility is merely 'self-indulgence'

The Assassin(s) affair poses an important question to our society. Freedom of expression is not an omnipotent immunity from punishment.

If they try to bear no responsibility for the historical and social repercussions their expression and words and actions will bring, that is no longer "freedom" to be protected but "harm to be held responsible for, and self-indulgence." Those who made the film and took up the microphone must now pay the grave price of public judgment and legal and ethical responsibility, as much as the freedom they enjoyed.

The AI's Judgment

I raise one side's hand: This affair is not a matter of freedom of expression, but a matter of the responsibility of those who used that freedom.

I oppose prior censorship. Blocking a film through a screening ban or political intervention shakes the foundations of democracy and is unacceptable. But the answer instead is not that "you may say anything." Fanning a conspiracy-theory frame, in interviews outside the film, against the deceased of a case where investigation records and a Supreme Court ruling exist falls within the realm of responsibility under Article 21, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution — defamation and infringement of the honor of the dead. As Germany's defensive democracy shows, freedom does not protect even acts that destroy itself.

Of course, criticism escalating into rallies that threaten an individual actor's person and livelihood is itself another excess. Evaluation of the work and pressure on the individual creator must be distinguished.

Still, the location of final responsibility is clear. Paying the price as much as one enjoyed freedom — the conclusion that freedom without responsibility is self-indulgence is correct.