Floki

I’m not saying people should excuse or “hold space” for harmful behavior. There’s a difference between understanding why someone believes something and defending what they believe.

I just don’t think wishing the worst on people gets us anywhere. We can condemn actions, hold people accountable, and be angry without turning everyone involved into something less than human. That kind of thinking is exactly what makes these conversations so toxic in the first place.

I think we've reached the point where we're talking past each other.

You're treating "not charged," "not convicted," and "innocent" as interchangeable, but neither the law nor I do. They are related, but they are not the same.

The law distinguishes between presumed innocent, not guilty, and factually innocent. These distinctions exist because they prevent uncertainty from being turned into certainty.

- Presumed innocent: a legal protection; guilt must be proven.
- Not guilty: guilt was not proven to the required standard.
- Factually innocent: a claim about what actually happened.

From the beginning, you have stated that he is innocent as a fact and that it was the only truth. The issue is that neither of us knows the truth. The absence of a criminal case means there is no established criminal guilt; it does not automatically prove factual innocence. So no, I did not move the goalpost.

I am not saying allegations should be treated as true, or that someone should live under suspicion. I am saying that "not proven guilty" and "factually innocent" are not the same thing.

You are free to believe he is innocent, but that remains your opinion, not an established fact. Terminology matters because the law can determine legal responsibility, but it does not always answer every factual question.

Calling that distinction "gaslighting" or an attempt to make you look unstable does not address the actual point being made. It shifts the discussion from the argument itself to assumptions about my intentions. Do you know my intentions? You do not, you believe you do and you assume that you do. You do the same thing when talking about his innocence. You believe you know something and claim it to be true, even when you do not.

Finally, I pointed this out because I think it is something worth reflecting on, not as a personal attack. Do you genuinely think that posting so many separate comments on the same issue makes your argument easier for people to follow and engage with? Sure it might let people think you are too invested, some might believe you are disorganized because of that investment.

A more structured and consolidated response would likely make your points clearer and keep the focus on the substance of your argument.

Unfortunately, the latest data doesn't really show that South Korea's legal reforms have significantly reduced cyberbullying. They've made it easier to report and punish it, but it still happens (and that's not just a South Korea problem).

To me, that shows that punishment alone isn't enough (or the threat of punishment). If we actually want to reduce cyberbullying, we need to focus more on education and helping people understand the impact of their actions.

The same goes for individuals. Calling people out or acting as the 'online justice police' might feel like you're doing what is right, but it doesn't necessarily stop the behavior. If the goal is to create real change, empathy and education are probably more effective in the long run than punishment alone.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do what you think is right. I'm just suggesting that if the goal is to actually reduce cyberbullying, there may be a better approach.

I think we're going in circles, whether that's intentional or not.

You keep assuming that if no criminal complaint was filed, then the allegations cannot have been genuine or believed by the people making them. That simply does not follow. There are many reasons why someone may not pursue criminal proceedings, and none of them, on their own, establish that the underlying events did or did not occur.

You also keep narrowing the discussion to criminal guilt, while the controversy concerns factual allegations about conduct. Those are different questions. The absence of a criminal case tells us that no criminal court has ruled on guilt. It does not tell us what actually happened.

Likewise, saying "if it were true, a complaint would have been filed" is speculation, not a legal principle. The absence of a criminal complaint neither proves nor disproves the allegations.

I have never argued that Kim Soo Hyun should be treated as guilty. You cannot turn the absence of a criminal prosecution into proof that he is factually innocent or that every allegation is false. That is your conclusion, not an established fact. And I have been saying this multiple times.

That is why I distinguish between legal status and factual certainty. One does not automatically determine the other.

I'm sorry to say this, but posting walls of text filled with generic definitions and excerpts from legal statutes probably won't have the effect you're hoping for on people engaging in online bullying or cyberstalking.

I understand what you're trying to accomplish here, but repeatedly spamming long messages isn't necessarily the most effective approach. Make your messages your own. Rather than threatening people or overwhelming them, help them understand why their behavior is harmful and how it can affect real people. A genuine, thoughtful message is far more likely to make someone stop and reflect than a copied block of text.

That's a rather curious take.

From my experience, if you've known someone who died by suicide, it doesn't matter whether you were very close to them or not. If you're an empathetic person, it's natural to wonder whether there was something you missed, something you could have done differently, or whether something you said or did contributed to their pain.

Ultimately, yes, the decision to end one's life is their own. But that doesn't mean it happens in a vacuum. Feeling trapped, isolated, pressured, or believing there is no way out can lead someone to that point.

If you truly understand mental health, you know that people who die by suicide often feel profoundly alone and abandoned. Their decision is rarely the result of a single event or a single person. More often, it's the culmination of trauma, ongoing suffering, and a combination of circumstances, some of which may involve the actions of others.

That's why it's important to avoid oversimplifying the issue by saying, "No one can blame another person." While no one can know exactly what was in her mind, it's equally true that our actions, relationships, and the way we treat others can have a profound impact on someone's mental well-being.

Accusing me of “manipulating public opinion” simply because I am making a distinction you disagree with does not address the argument. Disagreeing with a conclusion does not make the person presenting it dishonest.

If anything, comparing my point to a discredited source appears to be an attempt to discredit me by association rather than engage with what I am actually saying. The fact that you dislike the conclusion or the nuance being raised does not make the argument invalid.

The distinction between “not proven guilty,” “presumed innocent,” and “proven innocent” exists independently of any individual or source discussing this case. It is a basic difference between legal conclusions and factual certainty.

If you disagree with that distinction, explain why. But assigning motives or linking someone to another person simply because you disagree with their point does not address the substance of the argument.

You are focusing on criminal liability: whether someone has been formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted. On that point, you are correct: Kim Soo Hyun has not been convicted of a crime.

However, the existence of allegations and public claims is not limited to criminal complaints. A person can face allegations about their conduct without a criminal case ever being filed. The absence of a criminal complaint means there is no criminal proceeding to determine guilt; it does not automatically prove that every disputed claim is false.

That is the distinction I have been making from the beginning. Saying “he has not been proven guilty” is a legal statement. Saying “he is innocent and the allegations never happened” is a factual conclusion that requires evidence, evidence you cannot have at this point.

You are also assuming that if something happened, a criminal complaint would necessarily follow. Reality is more complicated: people may choose not to report, may lack sufficient evidence, may pursue other legal routes, or may simply leave matters unresolved.

My point has never been that he should be considered guilty. It is the opposite: nobody should be declared guilty without proof. But the same standard applies in reverse: lack of a criminal case does not give anyone access to the complete truth or allow them to present their personal conclusion as an established fact.

It looks like you're conflating two different things this time: criminal liability and factual innocence.

You're right that there has been no criminal prosecution against Kim Soo Hyun. But that doesn't automatically make every allegation about his conduct factually false. And this is the essential part, there are important allegations regarding this situation.

Many allegations concern behavior that may never result in criminal charges, either because they are disputed, difficult to prove, time-barred, or not alleged as crimes in the first place! The absence of a criminal case simply means no court has ruled on criminal guilt. It does not establish what actually happened.

That's why I keep making the distinction. You can accurately say he has never been charged or convicted. But saying "he is innocent" treats unresolved factual questions as though they have already been answered, and they haven't.

Even if some key pieces of evidence have been discredited, that does NOT mean nothing happened or that we now know the full truth. It simply means those particular pieces of evidence cannot reliably establish the allegations.

A common mistake the public makes is assuming that once some evidence is found to be unreliable, all of the evidence and every allegation must therefore be false. That is not how evidence works. Each piece has to be assessed on its own merits.

For that reason, you cannot conclude as a fact that he is innocent. At most, you can conclude that the allegations have not been proven based on the available reliable evidence. What you personally choose to believe is separate from both the legal position and the factual truth. Your belief may be reasonable, but it is not the same as either..

Finally, the lack of sufficient evidence does not establish that a person is innocent. It simply means that, based on the reliable evidence currently available, guilt cannot be established. Those are two different conclusions, and confusing them is where many people go wrong.

I think this is where the legal wording is being taken too far.

It is true that Kim Soo Hyun has not been charged, prosecuted, or convicted of a crime. But that does not mean a court has officially declared him “proven innocent.” It only means there has been no criminal case where guilt was established.

The more accurate wording is that he has no criminal conviction and the allegations have not been proven in court. That is different from saying every disputed claim has been proven false.

A court decides whether someone is legally guilty based on the evidence presented in a case. It does not automatically resolve every private matter or question that exists outside of the legal process.

So the distinction still matters: no proven guilt is not the same thing as proven innocence.

Thank you for bringing Yu Menglong to my attention. He has been added to the list. Even though the list is sadly growing longer, each person on it represents a life and a legacy worth remembering.

I believe this is where we fundamentally disagree.

You are using “presumed innocent” and “innocent” interchangeably, but they are simply not the same. Presumption of innocence is a legal safeguard against being treated as guilty without proof; it is not a factual determination that every allegation is false.

So when you say, “until a court rules otherwise, Kim Soo Hyun is innocent,” you go beyond that principle. A court not finding someone guilty only means guilt has not been legally proven; it does not resolve every disputed fact.

That has been my only point. You are free to believe he is innocent, but that remains your conclusion, not an established fact. Neither of us has access to the full truth, and we may never have it.

One final observation: your argument would be stronger if you consolidated your points instead of posting many separate comments in the thread. The repetition can give the impression that you are becoming very invested in the whole situation, which may distract from the points you are trying to make...

In any case, I respect your decision to end the discussion.

You are shifting the discussion from the point being made to the fact that I responded to you. That does not address the actual issue...

I never argued that insults or personal attacks are acceptable. The reason I responded to your comment is because it made a specific claim about innocence and evidence, as I said earlier. The distinction between presumed innocent and proven innocent is the point being discussed.

You are free to disagree with my correction, but suggesting that I am applying a different standard because I did not respond to every other comment is a deflection. Each comment should be judged on its own, and you made multiple comments pushing a specific agenda.

If you believe my distinction is wrong, explain why. If you are implying that my intentions are unfair, say that directly instead of shifting the conversation toward who else received a reply.

The fact that other comments may contain insults or accusations does not change the specific point being discussed here...

I am responding to your comment because it makes a particular claim about innocence, evidence, and what can be stated as fact. This is not about ignoring other behavior or defending personal attacks; it is about addressing the argument being made in this conversation.

If you believe I am applying a different standard or acting unfairly, please explain that directly. I’m happy to discuss that, but redirecting the conversation toward other comments does not address the point being debated here.

The issue is the difference between presumed innocent and confirmed innocent. The presumption of innocence means he should not be treated as guilty without proof. It does not mean the full truth has been established in his favor!

That was my issue with your earlier comments. You cannot state “he is innocent” as a fact because none of us has access to every piece of evidence or every private detail. What you can say is that he is presumed innocent, and that the allegations have not been proven.

Accusations alone are not enough to declare someone guilty, but the absence of a conviction is also not the same as a confirmed factual finding of innocence.

I understand your clarification, but the nuance matters.. Legally, a person is not considered proven innocent; they are presumed innocent until guilt is established.

Presumption of innocence means there is no legal basis to treat someone as guilty based only on allegations. It does not mean every allegation has been disproven or that the full truth is known. You don't know the truth, and I don't know the truth.

That is why saying “he is innocent, that is the only truth” goes beyond the legal principle you're claiming to be using. He is presumed innocent, and the allegations have not been proven. It doesn't mean he is innocent, or that every piece of evidence is false, fake or fabricated.

I think it’s important to understand where people are coming from, even when we disagree with them. Wishing harm on someone or their supporters does not help the situation, especially when many people are acting based on the info and beliefs they currently have rather than with the intention of being malicious.

People can criticize, question, and disagree without dehumanizing others. These situations are already emotionally draining; adding more hostility only makes it harder to have a reasonable conversation... We do not need to go this far to make a point.

While you are correct that allegations are not facts until proven. But you are confusing presumption of innocence with proof of innocence. You stated multiple times that he is innocent, which is incorrect.

The law requires the accuser to prove guilt; it does not require the accused to prove innocence. A lack of conviction means the allegations remain unproven, not that every allegation has been factually disproven.

Again, the accurate statement is: he is legally presumed innocent and the claims have not been established. Saying "he is innocent" as an absolute fact goes beyond what has been proven. In this situation, it also shows bias.

You are right that the burden of proof is on the accuser and that Kim Soo-hyun is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. However, there is a huge difference between legal presumption of innocence and a Factual declaration of innocence.

No court has found him guilty, but no court has issued a judgment declaring that every allegation was false either. Reported investigations have challenged key evidence behind some claims, but that is not the same as a court verdict.

The most accurate statement is: he is presumed innocent, and the allegations have not been proven. Saying "he is innocent" is an interpretation unless referring to the legal principle of innocence until proven guilty.

Clearly, you are pushing for the first interpretation and presenting it as absolute fact. It may be worth slowing down... taking a step back from the comment section, and avoiding becoming so emotionally invested in a situation where none of us has access to the full truth.

It is understandable why some people found this situation sus. The timing of her death on his bday, the military letters, their past acquaintance when she was young, the photo exchange, her being a fan of him, and the later agency relationship naturally raised questions. Those points deserve to be discussed and shouldn't be ignored.

However, suspicion is not the same as proof. The public evidence does not establish that he groomed her, dated her as a minor, or intentionally used his position of power. The letters and past interactions can be interpreted in different ways, and key evidence behind the underage-dating claim has been disputed and reportedly found unreliable by investigators.

It is also unfair to claim we know who caused her death or what happened privately between them. The truth is that we may never know everything that happened behind closed doors. The responsible position is to acknowledge the unanswered questions without turning assumptions into facts, whether that means declaring him guilty or declaring him completely innocent.

Saying "Kim Soo Hyun is innocent" is your opinion, not an established fact. No court has ruled that he is legally innocent, and while recent investigations reportedly undermined key evidence against him, that is not the same as a judicial exoneration.

What I find striking is how some people spend so much time flooding comment sections insisting on his innocence with absolute certainty. It comes across as being emotionally invested in defending an actor they don't know personally. That certainty reflects a bias, not knowledge.

The truth is, none of us knows exactly what happened behind closed doors, and we may never know. Until the facts are conclusively established, both "he's guilty" and "he's innocent" remain conclusions, not facts.