i'm on ep 13... romance is not the main theme of this drama. There is some minor love triangle but nothing pronounced.…
can you explain why grandma and her ex husband and her granddaughter and a Stanger are look alike and if they look like there grandparents does it make incest a good option ?
Your post overstates the law and comes across more as an attempt to intimidate people into staying silent than…
You're mixing up what is legally possible with what actually happens in practice.
Yes, there are international treaties, MLATs, and procedures like 28 U.S.C. § 1782 that can help obtain evidence. But obtaining user information is not the same thing as successfully enforcing a foreign defamation judgment or prosecuting a foreign citizen.
U.S. courts don't simply enforce another country's laws because that country requests it. They apply U.S. law and U.S. constitutional protections. The First Amendment provides very broad protection for speech about public figures, and foreign defamation judgments often face significant obstacles in U.S. courts if they conflict with those protections.
So citing the Budapest Convention, MLATs, or §1782 doesn't prove that an American who criticizes a public figure online will be held liable under South Korean defamation law. Those mechanisms mainly facilitate cooperation or evidence gathering—they don't automatically override U.S. constitutional standards or require U.S. courts to enforce foreign speech laws.
You're presenting an exceptional legal possibility as though it's the ordinary outcome. In reality, cross-border online defamation cases are legally complex, jurisdiction-dependent, and far from automatic.
Your post overstates the law and comes across more as an attempt to intimidate people into staying silent than…
You're arguing against positions I never took. I never claimed people should present allegations as established facts, so stop pretending that's the disagreement.
You also don't have the authority to speak on behalf of the person involved. You're neither their lawyer nor their legal representative. So telling everyone what legal consequences they face comes across as speculation, not legal analysis.
Saying that people shouldn't assume they're immune from lawsuits is one thing. Suggesting that ordinary commenters discussing a public figure are likely exposing themselves to legal liability is another. Public figures are criticized, accused, mocked and gossiped about every single day. That alone doesn't mean every participant is committing defamation or is about to be sued.
And regarding your distinction between "I think he's suspicious" and "He's a pedophile," you're presenting your own legal interpretation as though it's universally accepted. Different countries apply different defamation standards and have different protections for freedom of expression. You don't get to declare that everyone in Europe or America must share your view.
People often express what they genuinely believe based on publicly available information. Whether those beliefs are correct is one issue. Whether a particular statement is legally defamatory is another, and that depends on the exact wording, context, available evidence, and the law that applies. It's not something you can decide with a blanket statement.
You're also overlooking a major difference between legal systems.
In the United States, speech about public figures receives some of the strongest constitutional protection in the world under the First Amendment. Every day, millions of Americans call Donald Trump a dictator, a fascist, a criminal, a would-be king, or accuse him of being connected to Epstein. People use all kinds of harsh labels and accusations in political debate. Yet American law does not automatically treat every one of those statements as defamation, nor does Trump sue every individual who says them.
South Korea has significantly stricter defamation laws than the United States, including broader protections for reputation. Those legal standards are different. You can't simply assume South Korean legal principles apply to American or European commenters.
So when you imply that people from the U.S. or Europe should fear legal consequences simply for participating in public discussion, you're presenting your opinion as if it's settled law. It isn't.
Finally, it's ironic that you're criticizing people for allegedly stating opinions as facts while presenting your own legal opinion as if it's an established legal conclusion. You're not the court, you're not a prosecutor, and you're not the person's legal representative.
So once again, you're responding to arguments I never made while presenting your own interpretation of defamation law as though it applies everywhere. It doesn't.
Your post overstates the law and comes across more as an attempt to intimidate people into staying silent than as neutral legal information.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in many democratic countries. People are allowed to criticize public figures, discuss allegations that are already public, and express opinions. Defamation laws exist to protect people from false factual statements, not to prevent discussion or criticism.
You also present the legal position as if it is universal, when it isn't. Laws differ significantly between countries. Many European countries and the United States have much stronger protections for speech than South Korea in many contexts. In the U.S., for example, public figures generally face a much higher legal standard to win a defamation case. Simply filing a lawsuit does not mean someone has done anything illegal.
Ironically, South Korea is often criticized because its defamation laws can, in some circumstances, allow truthful statements to be punished if a court finds they were not made in the public interest. Those laws have been criticized by international human rights organizations for potentially chilling free speech. That is not the standard followed everywhere.
Nobody should falsely accuse someone of a crime without evidence. But it's equally wrong to use the threat of lawsuits to discourage people from discussing public controversies or expressing their opinions. The answer to bad speech is evidence and facts—not legal intimidation.
People should be careful, truthful, and distinguish between allegations, opinions, and proven facts. That's a much better approach than trying to frighten everyone into silence with worst-case legal scenarios.
brother and sister flirting the whole day
grandmas ex husband look like kang ha neul ?
and her granddaughter and a Stanger are look alike
and if they look like there grandparents does it make incest a good option ?
From the start of the drama, FL started flirting with her supposed Married Brother, who looks exactly like her grandfather...
Yes, there are international treaties, MLATs, and procedures like 28 U.S.C. § 1782 that can help obtain evidence. But obtaining user information is not the same thing as successfully enforcing a foreign defamation judgment or prosecuting a foreign citizen.
U.S. courts don't simply enforce another country's laws because that country requests it. They apply U.S. law and U.S. constitutional protections. The First Amendment provides very broad protection for speech about public figures, and foreign defamation judgments often face significant obstacles in U.S. courts if they conflict with those protections.
So citing the Budapest Convention, MLATs, or §1782 doesn't prove that an American who criticizes a public figure online will be held liable under South Korean defamation law. Those mechanisms mainly facilitate cooperation or evidence gathering—they don't automatically override U.S. constitutional standards or require U.S. courts to enforce foreign speech laws.
You're presenting an exceptional legal possibility as though it's the ordinary outcome. In reality, cross-border online defamation cases are legally complex, jurisdiction-dependent, and far from automatic.
Please suggest me some good dramas
That don't just focus on a single thing for whole drama...
you can play fact-check in your bathroom, i am not interested; I did not claim whether he is Guilty or innocent,
That might be your own opinion about yourself
You also don't have the authority to speak on behalf of the person involved. You're neither their lawyer nor their legal representative. So telling everyone what legal consequences they face comes across as speculation, not legal analysis.
Saying that people shouldn't assume they're immune from lawsuits is one thing. Suggesting that ordinary commenters discussing a public figure are likely exposing themselves to legal liability is another. Public figures are criticized, accused, mocked and gossiped about every single day. That alone doesn't mean every participant is committing defamation or is about to be sued.
And regarding your distinction between "I think he's suspicious" and "He's a pedophile," you're presenting your own legal interpretation as though it's universally accepted. Different countries apply different defamation standards and have different protections for freedom of expression. You don't get to declare that everyone in Europe or America must share your view.
People often express what they genuinely believe based on publicly available information. Whether those beliefs are correct is one issue. Whether a particular statement is legally defamatory is another, and that depends on the exact wording, context, available evidence, and the law that applies. It's not something you can decide with a blanket statement.
You're also overlooking a major difference between legal systems.
In the United States, speech about public figures receives some of the strongest constitutional protection in the world under the First Amendment. Every day, millions of Americans call Donald Trump a dictator, a fascist, a criminal, a would-be king, or accuse him of being connected to Epstein. People use all kinds of harsh labels and accusations in political debate. Yet American law does not automatically treat every one of those statements as defamation, nor does Trump sue every individual who says them.
South Korea has significantly stricter defamation laws than the United States, including broader protections for reputation. Those legal standards are different. You can't simply assume South Korean legal principles apply to American or European commenters.
So when you imply that people from the U.S. or Europe should fear legal consequences simply for participating in public discussion, you're presenting your opinion as if it's settled law. It isn't.
Finally, it's ironic that you're criticizing people for allegedly stating opinions as facts while presenting your own legal opinion as if it's an established legal conclusion. You're not the court, you're not a prosecutor, and you're not the person's legal representative.
So once again, you're responding to arguments I never made while presenting your own interpretation of defamation law as though it applies everywhere. It doesn't.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in many democratic countries. People are allowed to criticize public figures, discuss allegations that are already public, and express opinions. Defamation laws exist to protect people from false factual statements, not to prevent discussion or criticism.
You also present the legal position as if it is universal, when it isn't. Laws differ significantly between countries. Many European countries and the United States have much stronger protections for speech than South Korea in many contexts. In the U.S., for example, public figures generally face a much higher legal standard to win a defamation case. Simply filing a lawsuit does not mean someone has done anything illegal.
Ironically, South Korea is often criticized because its defamation laws can, in some circumstances, allow truthful statements to be punished if a court finds they were not made in the public interest. Those laws have been criticized by international human rights organizations for potentially chilling free speech. That is not the standard followed everywhere.
Nobody should falsely accuse someone of a crime without evidence. But it's equally wrong to use the threat of lawsuits to discourage people from discussing public controversies or expressing their opinions. The answer to bad speech is evidence and facts—not legal intimidation.
People should be careful, truthful, and distinguish between allegations, opinions, and proven facts. That's a much better approach than trying to frighten everyone into silence with worst-case legal scenarios.
ML was having an affair when his kid died ?