v0.

1
I start with the big picture perspective. The first thing that this Hyeri incident highlights imho is a
problem found most severely in developed countries where individual expression is valued especially
highly. For example, it is common in the U.S. to find those who say, "that's offensive" and expect that
statement to be persuasive, even among the most overeducated. The problem with this is that without
considering whether it was reasonable to arrive at the conclusion that the given speech or conduct was
"offensive," the statement only conveys the speaker's selfish views.
Given human variety and selfishness, one can find someone willing to be outraged over any thought or
behavior imaginable, especially when dealing with the greater public. When I write in my personal diary
that "I like dogs," some stranger reading it may get outraged and offended because, "I was bitten by a
dog and became traumatized!!!" and "From my perspective that's hate speech discriminating against a
vulnerable minority group that I belong to!!!" and "Your bigotry makes you a failure as a role model to
your own children!!!" and "You must be penalized and turned into a public example so that others will
learn not to be like you!!!" I tried to paint an outlandish scenario but one can find similarly outrageous
examples while studying law or the social sciences about the modern age. While "freedom of speech"
and other principles or doctrines will usually bar such problematic challenges in law, in Hyeri's case she
is dealing with the "court of public opinion," which is a mental wasteland where no legal, moral, and
ethical principles or considerations are necessary.
Before the "that's offensive" conclusion leads into, "the owner of the speech/conduct acted wrongly,"
we must consider whether "the person that was offended" is socially defective. "The offended" might
have perceived the "offense" in such a negative light because he/she is sociopathic or antisocial.
According to Beast fans, Hyeri "mocked" and "disrespected" their group/specific-member. But could a
conclusion be reached where her behavior was "not mocking" and "not disrespectful"? Based on the
social norms found in Korea or elsewhere, are all other innocent explanations for her behavior
completely outside the realm of possibility? Is it rational to clearly conclude that Hyeri "mocked" and
"disrespected" based on the one piece of video evidence that has been in public circulation? What other
"evidence" do "the offended" have? Even if they could explain the exact problematic movements of
Hyeri and/or her exact problematic words, is it actually true that "the offended" do not themselves
encounter such movements and words of those exact qualities on a day to day basis? If they are in the
habit of witnessing behavior that are mundane and common in others but arouses fury in themselves, it
may be that "the offended" are indeed sociopathic or antisocial. If they are socially defective, they
should correct their own behavior and thinking, not Hyeri.
So what did Hyeri do anyway?
While it is easy to find hateful and confidently biased conclusions left for Hyeri by self-professed Beast
fans on social media, I suspect that even among themselves, "the offended" would find it difficult to
agree upon what exactly Hyeri did that was so offensive. There is no auditory evidence. Her intentions
and actions must be interpreted solely based on her body language. There were no unambiguously clear
movements such as a raised middle-finger aimed at the Beast members on stage, or a choking sign with
both hands on one's neck. At no point did Hyeri frown or display scorn. While it is possible to mock
happily, what makes it clear to conclude that the given body language was made mockingly? Is it not
possible to find innocent examples of others who might have happily turned to an adjacent friend and
spoke/mouthed/moved in whatever way that the "the offended" concluded to be "mocking"? Similar
problems exist with the Korean language. Based on the self-appointed expert-status of "the offended,"
what exact words were used? And what is the evidence that made them "clearly mocking"? Is it possible

to use those "exact words" in a "clearly not mocking" way? Do they believe that she used words that
were self-evidently "mocking" or "disrespectful," such as profanity? What makes this case so special and
unusual?
Do any of "the offended" have the slightest bit of interest in their own country's established public
standards promulgated through evidentiary standards in law, or professional standards of those in the
relevant fields of the social or medical sciences? Did Hyeri's actions violate the standards of some
governing body overseeing the entertainment industry? Some specific industry norms? If "the offended"
don't care about any of these questions, why not? Should Hyeri be penalized because she violated
whatever idiosyncratic and selfish world view that this minority group holds?
After viewing the video evidence repeatedly while scanning for abnormal behavior, I could not find a
single incriminating thing to point out. It is common to find scenes in which celebrities, as members of
the audience at awards ceremonies, also become excited or emotional about certain guests or
performances and engage happily in personal conversation with those seated next to them. I find that it
is totally irrational to conclude that Hyeri "mocked" and "disrespected" Beast at the awards ceremony.
Are my conclusions clearly unreasonable?
If it is reasonable to conclude that Hyeri "did not mock," or, "the evidence is too ambiguous to arrive at
a conclusion," the only socially conscientious decision would be to find Hyeri not guilty of any social
wrongdoing. In all human societies that I am aware of, human beings are not penalized because they
"might have stolen my property," or "may be the one who ran me over with a car." Do "the offended"
live in a different type of society? If so, they must explain it to the rest of us.
Unfortunately, despite our own conclusions that Hyeri did not mock, and even if none of "the offended"
can muster up any logic to support themselves, the hateful comments directed at Hyeri or any other
Girl's Day member for anything else as mind-bogglingly stupid are in fact consequential and we need to
take them seriously.
Among contemporaneous examples, I find the ongoing case of Park Bom to be the most troubling.
Bom's "drug scandal" concerns a case that Korean prosecutors(the government's lawyers who charge
people with crimes and attempts to bring them to justice) investigated and dropped years ago, when
she was just a budding singer. When an unscrupulous reporter broke the story about the investigations
this year, the prosecution released a public statement.
We found out that:
1) The drug in question was not proscribed medically in Korea but was widely used to treat certain
patients in the U.S.
2) The government was able to confirm that Bom, who grew up in the U.S., obtained her pills from a
specific hospital and had relevant medical history.
3) Based on the amount of time that Bom had with the pills in Korea, and the number of pills that were
missing when the police seized them during their investigations, it was impossible that the drugs had
been used or sold for recreational use, or that they had been converted into another more dangerous
drug. The only logical explanation was that she had used them for medical treatment purposes.
Drug laws reflect society's fears that certain drug use will cause bodily damage or addiction, leading to
social problems. Although Bom had admitted to taking the drug, the prosecution exercised their
discretion and declined to charge her with any crime. This is an essential function of prosecutors to both

avoid a needlessly cumbersome and expensive justice system, and to ensure that criminal laws are
correctly applied against people that they were designed for. A patient with years of history of being
legally treated with the drug, who had obtained the drug through a legally sanctioned medical doctor,
who was unaware of the different laws in Korea, and fully cooperated with the government while telling
the truth is not the type of person that the drug laws were designed for. A true legal scandal would have
occurred if the government acquiesced to outside pressure and tried to charge her with a crime. Bom is
not a "criminal" in any way.
Despite all this, Bom was and continues to be targeted with hateful comments calling her a criminal,
drug addict, and accusing her of getting a free pass through corruption. These authors seem to be
oblivious to the many high-profile celebrities in Korea who had been successfully prosecuted and dealt
with harshly for another type of drug use, or the prosecution zeal in dealing with celebrity violations of
other legal prohibitions such as gambling. Because of this "scandal," Bom left a variety TV show that she
had been participating in and the producers did not air any of the footage that she had previously filmed.
Her company announced that she would take time off for "self-reflection," and she even missed the
award ceremony in which 2NE1 was crowned as the best female group of the year. Sadly, Bom is not the
only singer to have been unjustly penalized through negative public attention.
The voices of fans matter in shaping the mental wasteland of public opinion. Even if our foes might be
illiterate little girls who do not understand or care about the human society outside of their selfish heads,
we still need to carefully monitor and speak up for the artists that we care about whenever necessary. In
some cases, Dai5ys are the only protection that Girl's Day can count upon. As in the example above, the
exoneration earned through official channels and based on sound, ethical principles may not be enough
to save artists from actual harm.
Everyday, Girl's Day! !