Crime The strange case of defamations laws in Japan

[Maciamo]

I found this video by Paolo de Guzman about 'things okay in Japan but illegal around the world'. What interests me here is what he explains about how defamation works in Japan. As far as I know in all Western countries defamation is defined as the act of communicating to a third party false statements about a person, place or thing that results in damage to their reputation. However, Japanese laws does not specify that the statement needs to be untrue. In other words, saying anything in public about someone or a company that may be considered as damaging to their image or reputation, even if it's true, can result in a defamation lawsuit. If this is really the case (and it appears to be), then Japan is as bad as Saudi Arabia or Putin's Russia, as people can be sued for telling the truth about practically any subject. You are not satisfied with a product you bought and write a negative review on Amazon about it. Bam! Lawsuit for defamation. You complain about the bad service you received in a restaurant on Google Maps. See you in court. You think it's exaggerated? Paola gives the example of a rapist who successfully sued someone for defamation for telling people that he raped someone! It's a wonder how journalists aren't getting sued all the time with a law like this! I think that the main reason is that most Japanese don't like confrontation and lawsuits. If the US adopted the same defamation laws as Japan it would be utter chaos within days.

 

[thomas]

Tofugu's article on Japanese libel laws explains the cultural context.

The Truth Won't Set You Free

Even if a published statement is 100% true, it can still be considered defamatory if it irrevocably hurts the subject's reputation and oftentimes the question of truth doesn't really enter the equation. For example, in 2012 a Japanese man discovered that when he put his name into the Google search bar, it autocompleted results that implied he had a criminal record, and this man argued these autocomplete search results were severely damaging his reputation. Some sources strongly implied this man really did have a criminal past, others said that he was innocent. But it didn't really matter either way—the Japanese court ordered Google to remove the autocomplete terms, which they did.

And:

But Japan is also a country with a constitution that's extremely close to that of the United States. (Hence why I compared Japan law to United States law. Also, I'm American and this is what we do.) Yet, for better or worse, Japan interprets its open-ended free speech laws in ways that a United States court never would. We don't necessarily think about it, but laws like those for libel and slander interpret culture into action and it's pretty clear how Japanese courts use defamation law to best meet Japanese culture. Maybe samurai aren't falling on their swords anymore, but reputation and social standing are still meaningful things in Japan, and their effects are far-reaching, right down to how Google autocorrects your name.

Don't Get Sued! Libel, Slander, and Defamation Laws in Japan

Libel and slander differ from country to country, so becoming familiar with defamation laws in Japan is a smart way to protect yourself.

www.tofugu.com

I'm not sure how review sites like Gurunavi handle it, but I know we have to be careful with our very own Company Check subforum. Fortunately, most scammers are from overseas.

 

[thomas]

Bam! Lawsuit for defamation. You complain about the bad service you received in a restaurant on Google Maps. See you in court. You think it's exaggerated? Paola gives the example of a rapist who successfully sued someone for defamation for telling people that he raped someone! It's a wonder how journalists aren't getting sued all the time with a law like this! I think that the main reason is that most Japanese don't like confrontation and lawsuits. If the US adopted the same defamation laws as Japan it would be utter chaos within days.

Another aspect to consider is that the threshold to start a lawsuit in Japan is much higher than in the US or Europe. Going to court is always an ultima ratio when all other extra-judicial means have failed. I have no stats, but I'm sure the number of frivolous cases filed in Japan is much lower than in Western countries.

 

[Majestic]

I don't know the exact details of these cases, but I think the comparison with Saudi Arabia and Russia is a bit over the top (even though I agree that the potential to stifle news reporting is a real one).

The Japanese judiciary isn't a branch of the royal family (like it is in Saudi Arabia) or under the direct influence of the supereme-leader-for-life (like it is in Russia). In the case of the love-affair, I don't know the particulars but my guess is the issue hinges on whether the information about the affair is, or should be, in the public circle. And, its probably a civil case, not a criminal one. And, the penalty is almost laughably small by any standard, so, again, it feels like hyperbole to compare it with Saudi Arabia.

The "quasi-rape" case I don't know anything about, but again it seems like its a case more about the defendant's right to privacy than it is about whether or not the rape occurred. Was the defendant a minor? Was there some need to protect his/her identity? I don't know, but it seems the case was more about exposing this person than it was about defending his/her actions. If Paolo provided more details we could dig a bit further.

The Sumo case mentioned in the article Thomas posted was something I dove a bit deeper into (a great way to practice Japanese, by the way). This case seemed really strange to me, but it, too, hinged on the issue of whether or not the issue of match-fixing was sufficiently proven at the time of the trial (2008), and the court decided it wasn't proven sufficiently. Then, later on, in 2011 or so, more details and evidence emerged, and the magazine and reporter were ultimately vindicated.

 

[Lothor]

A possible consequence of this defamation law is a lack of quality information. I don't think I've ever seen a critical review for anything on Japanese TV, even a positive review that gives constructive criticism. Everything is oishii, omoshiroi, etc., whereas obviously some restaurants, films, books, etc., are better than others. Because of this, the main role of the media ends up being to provide free advertising to companies rather than to inform consumers.

 

[Maciamo]

I don't know the exact details of these cases, but I think the comparison with Saudi Arabia and Russia is a bit over the top (even though I agree that the potential to stifle news reporting is a real one).

The Japanese judiciary isn't a branch of the royal family (like it is in Saudi Arabia) or under the direct influence of the supereme-leader-for-life (like it is in Russia). In the case of the love-affair, I don't know the particulars but my guess is the issue hinges on whether the information about the affair is, or should be, in the public circle. And, its probably a civil case, not a criminal one. And, the penalty is almost laughably small by any standard, so, again, it feels like hyperbole to compare it with Saudi Arabia.

The "quasi-rape" case I don't know anything about, but again it seems like its a case more about the defendant's right to privacy than it is about whether or not the rape occurred. Was the defendant a minor? Was there some need to protect his/her identity? I don't know, but it seems the case was more about exposing this person than it was about defending his/her actions. If Paolo provided more details we could dig a bit further.

The Sumo case mentioned in the article Thomas posted was something I dove a bit deeper into (a great way to practice Japanese, by the way). This case seemed really strange to me, but it, too, hinged on the issue of whether or not the issue of match-fixing was sufficiently proven at the time of the trial (2008), and the court decided it wasn't proven sufficiently. Then, later on, in 2011 or so, more details and evidence emerged, and the magazine and reporter were ultimately vindicated.

I feel that the legal situation in Japan is potentially much worse (on paper) than in Saudi Arabia or Russia. In Russia the potential for abuse is basically limited to Putin and a few acolytes. In Saudi Arabia it's limited to the Royal family, and even among them recent events have shown that it was really Mohammed bin Salman who held the reins, and did not hesitate to take his own relatives hostage to ransom them.

What makes it much worse in Japan, IMHO, is that it is the law makes it very dangerous for anyone in the country to criticise any other person or business without exposing themselves to a lawsuit for diffamation. Russian people know that they shouldn't criticise Putin, but otherwise they are still free to express their honest opinions about shops and restaurants without risking being sued. That's unfortunately not the case in Japan (once again based on the actual law, even if few people decide to exploit it. That's why I am saying that the legal situation in Japan is potentially worse than Russia or Saudi Arabia). If the Zeitgeist were to change and Japanese people found a new liking for lawsuits à l'Américaine then Japanese society would quickly become unliveable with the current legislation.