Where rage is fueled by money and drives vigilantism

“I didn’t do anything wrong,” says Gong-ju, the protagonist of the movie ‘Han Gong-ju,’ based on a true story of a sexual assault case in Miryang, South Gyeongsang Province, in 2004. She was a victim of sexual assault. The line comes from a situation where the victim, who should have been protected, is instead physically surrounded by the parents of the perpetrators being asked to transfer schools. Sexual assault itself is outrageous, but the perpetrators are taking a step further by blaming the victim. This is why the incident is still fresh in the minds of the people, still provoking range.

Such rage drove the recently controversial issue of vigilantism. It started when a YouTuber disclosed personal information about the perpetrators, including their workplaces, on his channel. He described his channel as “where I say anything I need to say without fear of being sued.”

He also explained that the victim’s family agreed to disclose the information, which the public cheered for. This was subsequently followed by a ‘hunt’ targeting the people the YouTuber identified as perpetrators.

Was justice achieved through such acts? Judging from what has happened so far, the limitations of vigilantism have become more evident. Since the investigation was not conducted based on an accurate information system as done by the national judicial system, innocent people were blamed. For example, Ms. A, a nail salon owner who was accused of being the perpetrator's girlfriend, was found to be completely unrelated. She was bombarded with negative comments on her store review and filed a complaint with the police.

Moreover, some said that the YouTuber’s claim that he had obtained consent to disclose the perpetrators’ information was not true, raising further doubts about the YouTuber's intentions. This was pointed out by the Korea Sexual Violence Counseling Center, which supports victims of the incident, through press releases on June 5 and 7. The YouTuber explained that he had aligned with the victim before streaming his video. Still, it acknowledged that he had partially ignored the victim’s request to take down the video disclosing personal information.

Public outrage may have brought justice belatedly and made money for the Youtuber, as evidenced by the flood of YouTube donations ranging from 10,000 won up to 100,000 won. Outrage was translated into money.

Meanwhile, a rising number of YouTubers are covering the same subject without considering the victim. A clear example is the court ruling that explicitly describes the damage caused by the incident, which has been made public and circulated online. Another YouTuber warned on his channel: “I would not advise the victim of this incident to watch this video. The content to be revealed contains the terrible details of the day,” uploading data related to the incident. YouTubers also post their bank account info, seeking donations and claiming that they will fight against the perpetrators.

Would it be overexaggeration to say that the YouTubers are no different from the secondary perpetrators of the parents in the movie, surrounding the victim and forcing her to transfer schools? If the movie about this incident were to be rereleased, I believe the perpetrators would not be confined to those in the sexual assault.