Deepfake revenge porn laws: a discussion lesson for Korean high schoolers who've already seen the headlines

A 50-minute debate lesson on criminalising AI-generated explicit images, built for high school students in Korea where the 2024 Telegram scandal made this a lived issue, not an abstract one.

Park English · 2026-08-30 · 4 min read

Print it out

No sign-up, no email. Opens a clean print page.

In August 2024, Korean police reported over 800 cases of deepfake sexual abuse material shared on Telegram, most of it targeting middle and high school girls. The story ran on every news site your students scroll. By September, the National Assembly was drafting bills to raise maximum sentences from five years to life. Your class has opinions on this already — half of them formed before you walked in.

This lesson gives them fifty minutes of structured English to argue it out.

What the lesson covers

Students debate whether creating, sharing, or possessing AI-generated explicit images of real people should carry the same penalties as filming or distributing actual footage. The arguments split predictably: some will say the law should be identical because the harm to the victim is identical. Others will argue that because no physical act occurred, the crime is categorically different and the sentence should reflect that.

The shape of the debate matters less than the fact that they are using English to work through something they actually care about, with an adult who is not grading them on their opinion.

Why this works in a hagwon

Korean students are better at this than we expect. They have been taught to avoid confrontation in Korean, but English gives them distance. The language itself is the buffer. We have run this lesson six times in Gangnam and Bundang since September, and the longest silence so far has been four seconds.

The other reason it works: you are foreign. They know you were not here for the scandal, you do not have a daughter in the school two blocks over, and you are not going to phone their parents if they say something provocative. That removes ninety percent of the friction.

The structure

TimeActivityWhat you do
0–10 minFramingPut the scenario on the board. Keep it neutral. "AI program makes fake explicit photo of real person. No physical contact. Should the law treat this the same as secretly filming someone?" Do not editorialize.
10–25 minSmall groupsFour students per group. Each group lists three arguments for harsher penalties and three for lighter ones. You circulate. When someone uses Korean, you ask them to try it in English. If they cannot, you give them the word.
25–40 minWhole-class debateOne student from each group presents their strongest argument. You write key phrases on the board as they talk. Let them respond to each other; jump in only to rephrase or when the logic breaks.
40–50 minAnonymous vote + reflectionStudents write on a slip of paper: which punishment fits, and why, in two sentences. Collect them. Read three aloud with no names. Class votes on which argument was clearest.

The line you need to draw

Before you start, say this plainly: "We are debating the law, not whether the crime is serious. Everyone in this room agrees it is serious. The question is what the punishment should be."

That sentence stops the debate from collapsing into performance. Without it, you get one student grandstanding about how terrible the crime is, and everyone else nods, and nothing gets said in English.

What to do when someone says the wrong thing

They will. Someone will compare this to something that is not comparable, or will minimize harm in a way that makes the room uncomfortable. When it happens, reframe it as a question to the class: "Minho just said X. Does everyone agree that is the same situation, or is something different?" Then step back. Let them correct him in English. They will.

Vocabulary you should pre-teach

Put these on the board before the lesson starts:

  • consent (동의)
  • distribute (유포하다)
  • possession (소지)
  • intent (의도)
  • precedent (판례, 선례)

Do not spend fifteen minutes teaching vocab. Write the word, write the Korean next to it, give one example sentence, move on.

What happens after

Some students will want to keep talking. Let them, in the hallway, in English, for as long as they stay in English. That is the entire point of the exercise.

Others will shut down the moment the lesson ends and never mention it again. That is fine too. The work happened while they were speaking.

Common questions

What if my students are too shy to debate in front of the class?
Run the whole lesson in small groups of four and skip the whole-class section. At the end, each group writes their best argument on a piece of paper, you tape them to the board, and the class votes on the clearest one. Same outcome, no spotlights.
Is this appropriate for a hagwon, or should I clear it with the director first?
We have never had a director object when we framed it as "critical thinking and debate skills." If you are nervous, describe it as a media literacy lesson about AI-generated content and laws. Do not mention the Telegram scandal by name when you ask permission — the topic is laws around synthetic images, full stop. That said, if your school has a parent who complained about a debate topic before, choose a different lesson.

Looking for a teaching job in Korea?

Park English has placed native English teachers with Korean academies since 2006. Browsing and applying are free for teachers.

More in Discussion & Debate