South Korean government fails to tighten control over the Internet in their country

Now only the lazy governments of various countries are not trying to tighten control over the Internet. Indeed, because “who owns information, he owns the world,” and the Internet is Information, just so, with a capital letter. In the US, attempts to establish control over the Internet seem to succeed, countries such as India, China, Venezuela and others, have long been ahead of the rest of the world on this issue. In some CIS countries, the Internet is also controlled, and very successfully. In general, everything is somehow ambiguous, and this ambiguity is very unpleasant. The good news for free Internet advocates is the decision of the South Korean Constitutional Court.

This court ruled that the law recently banning false information on the Internet was unconstitutional. In fact, this is indeed a rather dangerous law that allows the authorities to punish those who "spread false information that harms the interests of society." You understand that under such a formulation everything can be hidden from trading fake Swiss watches to discussions of users dissatisfied with the government in any forum.
')
The South Korean Constitutional Court thought, and decided that this law is contrary to the country's constitution, since its very wording is very vague. And what is “public interest” or “false information”? These are terms that can be understood as you please, so the law cannot be passed. Representatives of the court separately noted that such a law simply violates the freedom of speech, which is guaranteed by the constitution.

It is clear that the majority of users of the South Korean Network welcomed the decision of the court. Now in South Korea, the government is really trying to tighten control over the South Korean segment of the Network, and some laws that allow to do this have already been passed. But the law, which was discussed above, was also adopted, but the court ruled that the law cannot be such, contrary to the country's constitution. So, perhaps, to domestic legislators (and not only to them), is it time to take an example from South Korean colleagues?