Considering the issue of slander and freedom of expression ...
This time I want to consider a slightly edgier issue.
According to the article above.
Takuya Matsunaga, who lost his wife and child in a car crash in Ikebukuro, Tokyo, in April 2019, was his The report stated that the Metropolitan Police Department voluntarily interviewed a man in his 20s living in Aichi Prefecture on suspicion of insult in a case where he was slandered on a social networking site.
Former Osaka Governor and lawyer Toru Hashimoto said, "I think the anonymity (of SNS) is important. When various truths are made public, especially when checking power, etc., pressure can be applied if real names are given out, and anonymity is important..." He began his comments by saying, "I think anonymity is important.
He then added, "There are certain limits to freedom of speech, and if we regulate it in advance, it will cause a shrinkage of freedom of expression, so when it is later decided in court that this is not allowed, we will impose a penalty in the form of a severe punishment or increased civil damages. The current social networking regulations in Japanese society are very weak in terms of ex post facto penalties. I think that the penalties should be severer.
In this incident, an anonymous account responded to Matsunaga's Twitter post on the 11th of this month, writing, "It looked like he was just fighting for money and repercussions. An investigation by the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department led to the surfacing of a man in his 20s, who was interviewed on January 19. The Metropolitan Police Department raided the man's home."
The police asked him about the situation on the 19th.
It can be said that this is a kind of familiar issue of slander and freedom of expression.
First of all, since freedom of expression is a vulnerable freedom, it is generally desirable that regulations be fairly lax.
This is true even after the fact.
Regulations, whether ex ante or ex post, will have the effect of atrophying expression. The mere possibility of arrest is enough to have an effect. In fact, it is not good to take advantage of the time of the general public in such a way that criticism is suppressed.
There used to be an AA in dictatorships such as 2channel, etc. that said "You can say what you like...but you will be held responsible for your actions. Some people say freedom and responsibility, but if a person is forced to take responsibility for his or her actions, it cannot be called freedom.
In a society where people are held responsible for what they say, they cannot say what they want.
In fact, there are currently lawsuits between some circles and others concerning political statements. In fact, there is currently a legal battle between some neighborhoods and other neighborhoods regarding political statements, though the former are using their own names. I don't think it is desirable to be in a situation where one's careless comments on a political matter, or any matter, will result in a lawsuit. Since what is too much is always relative and uncertain, we should be lenient except when it is related to the actual act (i.e., obstruction of business).
Obstruction of business, including false accounting, should be punished appropriately. As one would expect, things like "I planted explosives in ..." should not be tolerated. I think such things should be heavily punished, but I think it is problematic to make the punishment very heavy for any kind of writing, even if it is after the fact. Just having the punishment would be enough.
The social sanction in Japan is almost always so great when a case is rejected in court, that it is enough, and it would be of little significance to increase the amount of damages.
In such a world, it is impossible to mention or communicate anything except to one's immediate surroundings or to people one knows.
The point of explosion differs from person to person, and it is difficult for anyone to predict how a certain word or action will spread and affect the world. Even a casual remark can become a big issue ("Japan is dying" might be a good example), and a full-blown appeal may not resonate anywhere.
Considering the risk of litigation, it is best to say nothing.
Probably in this case, too. It will be used for education in the context of "be careful what you write on social networking sites because you will be sued if you write something bad. If it's bad, it might be taught in a way that says, "You shouldn't write anything.
It is not hard to understand. If I were a teacher, I might instruct my students to do so. That would include risk aversion to avoiding repercussions for myself and my organization, but in any case, to avoid students writing poorly and getting flamed, uniformly, don't write! Or, at least, not to get involved in social topics.
Is that a good thing coming from a source that says, "Let's be interested in society and politics"?
*I myself find the arguments of those in that line of work problematic, so I don't necessarily agree with them.
Whether tweets such as "It looked like you were only fighting for money and repercussions" this time constituted criticism or mere insult and slander will depend on the outcome of the investigation and trial, and probably the result of continued attacks in a somewhat stalking manner, but I think that those that also include such critical expressions are also If it is not allowed, the problem would be huge.
→I don't think it's out of the question to say "It looked like you were only fighting for money and repercussions," so I believe that you have been harassing people and writing offensive posts repeatedly. If it is just one tweet, it is indeed just a personal opinion, and if it is impossible to express even that, it would be quite problematic.
→→However, from a teacher's point of view, if you write on Twitter while showing this article, "It looked like you were only fighting for money and repercussions," you will be searched, so don't write these things! The trap is to want to instruct.
(A few mock responses, with S=student, T=teacher)
S: "Sir, then what can I write?"
T: "Hmmm, thinking about the person I'm dealing with, I'd prefer not to write, 'If they say this, don't run to the police.'"
S: "If this is said, what would you like me to say? Do you think it depends on how people feel, situations, etc.? I guess there are times when it's okay to say "idiot," and times when it's not."
T: "That's difficult because it's case by case. At any rate, you shouldn't talk about something you're not directly involved in. If the other party considers it slanderous, they might turn you in to the police."
S: "So you are saying that we should be honest in expressing our opinions, but in reality we should be disciplined and only say things that are not out of the ordinary in the world?"
T: "That's true when it comes to things that don't directly concern me. There is little need to dare to risk a lawsuit when there is no conflict of interest. As long as there is little need to mention it, one should not take unnecessary risks."
S: "My teacher taught me that in a democracy it is a good attitude to be broadly interested in social issues and to consider various social problems as one's own affairs..."
T: "That's true, but you have to be very prepared for a court case. I don't know the extent to which this person wrote this text, but writing it without any kind of warning was dangerous, that's what I'm saying. There is a difference between being interested and expressing a lukewarm opinion."
S: "This writing points out the political and self-serving aspect behind it, and I think that such a place can be behind everything. Is it not good enough to point that out? For example, do you think that people who stand out are not politicians because they want to be politicians? I think the closer it is to the truth, the more it will aggravate the person in question?"
T: "In conclusion, you should not do it. The very people who have some agenda behind them tend to be more agitated, but it is hard to say. It could be that you have no intention of becoming a politician at all and are offended to be told so. Whether you are right or wrong, you will not get a good result either way, and in the end, the future side of the argument will determine whether or not the act was historically an act to become a politician or not. You should leave that evaluation to the future, and unless you really do not want the person in question to become a politician, you should not do it. Of course, if you know of a problem, such as someone who has harmed you in the past, you may be allowed to mention it, but in any case it is not a good idea to do so in a different context.
S: "So we can't exchange opinions on social issues of interest?"
T: "It is limited to the inside, and only to our own people. Exposure to the public, as in this case, is not allowed. It is fine to discuss it here, but not outside.
S: "Sounds like esoteric Buddhism."
T: "Yes, that's right. There is no such thing as public opinion. Freedom of expression is only fully guaranteed when it is discussed within one's own circle, and once it is outside, it is subject to certain restrictions. In the first place, freedom of all things, etc., is unattainable, and in the end, the balance of restrictions is necessary. Freedom of expression is absolutely protected in the areas related to freedom of the inner mind, etc., but it is better to consider that there are some restrictions for the public. You are free to write whatever you want in your diary if you do not intend to publish it, but if you publish it and abuse others, you are likely to be in trouble with the police. That's what I meant."
S: "So, in effect, you're saying that I shouldn't publish and social opinion?"
T: "I'm not going that far, but it would be preferable to make it public after a proper seminar or inside work has been done and it has been determined that there is no problem. There are academic groups for this purpose, and even if you don't go that far, there are various study groups. By going through some kind of organization, the expression will at least be acceptable to that organization and will be socially acceptable to a certain extent. Although it is possible that an entire group may be deemed inappropriate, it is less likely that the individual will be exposed to criticism than if he or she were to do it on his or her own. It is often the case that what you think is a good idea is not so good when you talk about it with others. I think it's important to get input from people with insight first.
S: "... (After all, it is an illusion that we can freely express our opinions.
T: "Yeah? Any opinions?)
S: "(It is not appropriate for me to have any more opinions against the teacher here. (If I do poorly, my grade will be lowered.) No, you're right, sir. I now understand that even though there is freedom of expression, it does not mean that I am allowed to publish my thoughts as they are. I will always get the opinions of my teachers and others before presenting my opinions.
T: "Excellent. Just make sure you don't post your opinion on social networking sites, etc., before you get the teacher's opinion on social issues. The police might fly in, and if you do, you'll get in trouble with the school. Oh, and of course, personal matters are fine. But if it's just a picture of a delicious sweet today, I think it's fine if it's something that won't bother anyone. However, there are many problems with posting things on social networking sites, so if you have any doubts, please consult with your teacher instead of making decisions on your own.
S: "(Yeah, after all, you say something like that, but in the end it's mostly SNS management. If something happens, why didn't you talk to your teacher about it? (Of course, I'm sure you're going to say that...) Ah, yes. Thank you very much."
Or something like that. After all, don't say anything on social networking sites, and social problems. In the end, the only thing to do is to not say anything on social networking sites.
Is that a good thing? Yes, it might be. There may be a certain problem in the fact that anyone can easily send out information about social issues.
In any case, the risk of lawsuits alone is a big deterrent. I don't think that raising the amount of the risk will increase the deterrent effect that much. It might be a good idea to widely spread the awareness that the risk is included in the statement.
If you say something, you can be held responsible for it to a certain extent. It is necessary for people to be aware of this. However, this will only hinder the free publication of opinions, and will not bring about a good meaning, will it? It is almost impossible to say that no one will be harmed, etc., and that makes it difficult to say anything more than the very obvious. I think it's passable to separate Insights from Outsides (Insights are quite liberal, Outsides are quite nonfree), but doesn't that lead to authoritarianism within Insights? Is it OK to not allow out what the authority does not approve of?
This is a topic that needs to be considered carefully.
We do not want to be sued at the end.
This article is neither a reference to the Ikebukuro case itself nor an objection to the views of Hashimoto's lawyers, but merely a critique, and if by any chance a party concerned should claim that it constitutes slander or libel, we will immediately apologize and retract the relevant portion.