mytest

UPDATES ON TWITTER: arudoudebito
DEBITO.ORG PODCASTS now on iTunes, subscribe free

Hi Blog.  Here’s something that adds up to another brick in the wall against internet bullies and defamers in Japan (who play a significant role in the debate, surprisingly).  The Supreme Court rules that the defense often utilized by proponents of bullying and slandering BBS 2-Channel, that people can discern for themselves what is fact or fiction, therefore issues such as defamation are irrelevant to a free-speech-loving society, simply won’t wash anymore.  Sorry it has to come to this, but freedom of speech does not mean freedom to lie and willfully, maliciously hurt people.  Or get away with not paying up after successful libel lawsuits like the one I had four years ago.  Arudou Debito in Tokyo

///////////////////////////////////////////////////

Supreme Court defamation ruling sounds warning bell over online responsibility
(Mainichi Japan) March 19, 2010 Courtesy of MS

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/perspectives/news/20100319p2a00m0na005000c.html

Just because a piece of information is published on the Internet, viewers do not necessarily deem it to be of low credibility. So ruled the Supreme Court recently in a defamation suit in which a man was accused of slandering a restaurant operator on his own Web site, saying that the company was affiliated with a cult.

The top’s court’s ruling secures a guilty verdict that ordered the man to pay 300,000 yen in compensation. It was the first ruling to confirm that the conditions for establishing defamation were not relaxed on the Internet.

Considering that people are often slandered, have their privacy violated, and sometimes even suffer human rights violations on the Internet — where users can post comments anonymously — the Supreme Court’s decision can be deemed appropriate.

In 2008 there were more than 500 online cases involving human rights violations in which the Ministry of Justice initiated relief measures. The figure was 2.5 times higher than in 2004. And in 2008 there were over 11,000 cases in which people approached police saying that they had been slandered. The figures indicate that there are many potential victims.

In what kind of situations do people not face defamation charges? One instance involves reports on information of public benefit, when the purpose of reporting the information is for public benefit and the information is true, or there are sufficient grounds to believe it is true. This has been established through judicial precedents.

In a district court ruling in the defamation case, the court found the man not guilty on the grounds that information on the Internet was of lower credibility and other users were able to rebut inappropriate claims. The court applied a more relaxed standard than the standard applied to newspaper and television reporting.

But in the latest ruling, the Supreme Court declared, “Online information is available to the general public very quickly, and it can cause serious damage in some cases. There is no guarantee that rebuttal of the information will restore a person’s reputation.” It judged that the standard should not be altered just for the Internet.

Internet users must keep in mind that if they post one-sided claims without backing up the information with evidence, or violate the privacy of others without confirming any of the facts with the person concerned, they may be accused of a crime.

Irresponsible and excessive words and deeds must not be permitted, regardless of whether they appear on the Internet or elsewhere. In the field of education, efforts are being made to provide instruction with teachers on hand to ensure that children do not get caught up in Internet crimes or engage in harassment online. As more people express themselves on blogs and other online forums, we want teachers to inform children that expression goes hand in hand with responsibility.

Under the limitation liability law for Internet providers, victims whose rights are violated can ask providers to delete posts or provide information on the ID of the person who posted the data. However, the decision on whether to comply with the request is left up to the provider.

Responding to the current situation in which child pornography or illegal information on drugs is being left unchecked on the Internet, the National Police Agency is reportedly preparing to actively pursue the criminal responsibility of site administrations who ignore requests to delete the information. Malicious cases of defamation are likely to be included as a matter of course.

We want everyone to come together to consider the appropriate form of a healthy Internet society.

============================

社説：ネット中傷有罪　「無責任さ」への警鐘だ
毎日新聞　2010年3月19日　2時46分
http://mainichi.jp/select/opinion/editorial/news/20100319k0000m070154000c.html
インターネットの掲載だからといって、閲覧者が信頼性の低い情報として受け取るとは限らない－－。

自分のホームページ上で、ラーメンチェーンの会社について「カルト団体が母体」などと中傷する文章を掲載し名誉棄損罪に問われた男性に対し、最高裁がそう指摘した。罰金３０万円の有罪判決が確定する。ネットでも名誉棄損罪の成立要件は緩やかにならないと初めて判断した。

匿名での書き込みが可能なインターネット上に、個人の名誉やプライバシー、時に人権を侵害する表現行為があふれることを踏まえると、妥当な結論ではないか。

法務省がネット上の人権侵犯事件として救済手続きを開始した件数は０８年で５００件を超えた。０４年の２．５倍に上る。中傷されたとして警察に寄せられる相談も０８年で１万１０００件を超える。潜在的な被害者が多いことを示す。

名誉棄損が問われないのはどういう場合か。公共の利害にかかわる内容について、公益を図る目的で、真実または真実と信じる相当の理由があって報道した場合が当たる。これが判例上の考え方だ。

１審の東京地裁判決は、ネットの情報の信頼性が低いことや、利用者は反論も可能だとして男性を無罪とした。新聞・テレビの報道より緩い「ものさし」を当てはめたものだ。

今回の最高裁決定は「ネット情報は不特定多数の利用者が瞬時に閲覧可能で、被害は深刻になり得る。反論によって名誉回復が図られる保証もない」として、ネットに限り基準を変えるべきではないとした。

一方的な立場の主張を裏付けなく垂れ流したり、当事者への事実確認を全くせずにプライバシーに踏み込んだ書き込みをすれば、罪に問われる場合もある。そのことをネットユーザーは心すべきである。

本来、ネットに限らず、無責任で行き過ぎた表現行為は許されない。教育現場では、ネット犯罪に巻き込まれたり、ネット上のいじめをしないように講師を招いて教える取り組みが進む。ブログなどでの情報発信が広まる中、表現する責任も伴うことを今後は教えてほしい。

プロバイダー（接続業者）責任制限法に基づき、権利が侵害された被害者は、事業者に削除要請や情報発信者の開示を要求できる。だが、応じるかの判断は業者に委ねられる。

児童ポルノや薬物犯罪に絡む違法情報が野放しになっている現状を受け、警察庁は削除要請を無視するサイト管理者らの刑事責任追及を積極的に進めるという。名誉棄損も含め悪質なケースは当然だろう。

健全なネット社会のあり方を皆で模索していきたい。
ENDS