Commentary on Japanese Supreme Court Case Regarding Removal of Twitter Posts on Arrest Records

In Japan, negative information such as arrest records and criminal records remaining on social networking sites like Twitter can have significant adverse effects when resuming social activities. In such cases, it is common practice to seek the removal of such information from the SNS platform through legal means.

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of Japan issued a ruling in a lawsuit seeking the removal of Twitter posts related to arrest records. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Tokyo High Court in the second trial and ordered the removal of the posts. The initial trial court had granted the request for deletion, but it was later denied by the second trial court, leading to the Supreme Court’s ultimate reversal of the decision.

This article provides an analysis of the key points in this Supreme Court decision, shedding light on the legal aspects surrounding the removal of Twitter posts concerning arrest records.

Case Summary: Prolonged Presence of Arrest Record Information on Twitter

In a notable legal case, an incident involving a male plaintiff entering a women’s bathhouse changing room for voyeuristic purposes was widely publicized by the Internet press on April 16, 2012. The man was subsequently indicted for trespassing and ordered to pay a fine of 100,000 yen by the Sendai Summary Court on May 17, 2012.

Following the arrest report, several Twitter posts were made by anonymous users. These posts, except for one, quoted news media reports on the arrest and included links to the corresponding website URLs. At the time of the lawsuit, all the original arrest articles had been removed and were no longer accessible through the linked web pages.

However, nearly seven years later, the posts in question remained visible and accessible as search results when searching for the plaintiff’s name on Twitter. In regards to Google search results, the plaintiff had already requested the removal of the search results, resulting in the absence of any information related to the posted articles when searching the plaintiff’s name on Google.

Analysis of Two Precedents on Posting Deletion

In the context of balancing privacy and freedom of expression, previous Supreme Court rulings have highlighted two key principles:

Compensation for Mental Distress: If the publication of facts related to a criminal record or similar information significantly harms an individual’s legal interests, it may be possible to claim compensation for mental distress caused by such publication.

Removal of Search Results: The Supreme Court recognized that search results provided by search engines, like Google, involve an element of expression by the search operators. Moreover, the Court acknowledged that search results play a fundamental role in the distribution of information in today’s digital society.

Considering the importance of search results as a cornerstone of information dissemination on the internet, the Court emphasized the need to carefully weigh the legal interests involved. If the legal interest in not making certain facts publicly available clearly outweighs the reasons for providing search results, individuals can request the removal of specific URLs and associated information from the search results.

These two precedents have significantly influenced the Court’s understanding of the delicate balance between privacy rights and freedom of expression in cases involving the deletion of posted content and the removal of search results.

If the legal interest in not having the relevant fact made public is weighed against the circumstances of the reason for providing the URL and other information as search results, and if, as a result, the legal interest in not having the relevant fact made public clearly outweighs the legal interest, a request may be made to the search operator to remove the relevant URL and other information from the search results.
Supreme Court decision, January 31, 2017

Twitter Post Deletion Trial: Protecting Privacy after Conviction

After individuals have served their sentence or completed their rehabilitation, it is crucial for them to reintegrate into society without unnecessary obstacles. Recognizing the importance of preserving their right to privacy and ensuring a peaceful transition to their post-conviction life, steps must be taken to prevent the public disclosure of their criminal records or related information.

In the case at hand, the plaintiff faced difficulties in his job search and other activities due to the presence of information about his arrest on Twitter. To address this issue, he filed a lawsuit seeking the removal of 19 posts relating to his arrest from the social media platform.

The plaintiff’s objective was to safeguard his privacy and protect his interests in successfully reintegrating into society. By requesting the removal of these posts, he aimed to mitigate the potential negative impact that the disclosure of his arrest information could have on his personal and professional life.

Tokyo District Court Decision: Twitter Ordered to Remove Posts

In the legal battle regarding the removal of Twitter posts related to the plaintiff’s arrest, the Tokyo District Court delivered its decision on October 11, 2028. This landmark ruling weighed the plaintiff’s privacy rights and interest in rehabilitation against the public’s right to information and the role of Twitter as an online platform.

During the initial hearing, the plaintiff, an ordinary company employee without an official position, presented compelling arguments. He emphasized the significant impact that the posts had on his job search and personal relationships. Furthermore, he highlighted the elapsed time since the incident, asserting that the public interest in publishing the arrest facts had diminished over the years.

In response, the Tokyo District Court acknowledged Twitter’s importance in today’s information distribution landscape, but distinguished it from essential infrastructure platforms like Google. The court then proceeded to assess the specific circumstances of the case.

While recognizing the public nature and initial public interest in the arrest, the court considered that more than seven years had passed since the plaintiff’s fine payment, rendering the sentence’s effect negligible. Moreover, the arrest did not involve a major public issue at the time, and its current public interest had significantly diminished. The court noted that the news articles linked to the posts had already been removed, limiting their availability.

Crucially, the court recognized the plaintiff’s non-public position and the importance of his rehabilitation without compromising his newfound social life. It acknowledged the detrimental effects the posts had on the plaintiff’s job search and other aspects of his life.

Taking all these factors into account, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s legal interest in not disclosing the arrest facts through the posts outweighed the legal interest and necessity of their continued publication. Consequently, the court ordered Twitter to remove the posts.

Tokyo High Court Decision: Upholds Twitter’s Role in Information Distribution

In the case regarding the deletion of Twitter posts, the Tokyo High Court rendered its decision on June 29, 2020. The court assessed the significance of Twitter as a global platform and its role in the distribution of information.

Recognizing Twitter’s widespread popularity with approximately 3.9 billion monthly hits worldwide and its use by prominent individuals, organizations, and government agencies, the court emphasized its crucial role as a foundation for internet information distribution in today’s society.

The reason for continuing to publish the posted article should be weighed against the legal interest in not having the said fact published. It is appropriate to require the removal of the posted articles on Twitter only when it is clear that the legal interest in not having the relevant facts made public is superior as a result of the comparison and balance.
Tokyo High Court, June 29, 2019 Decision

The High Court established specific criteria for assessing the removal of posted articles on Twitter. It emphasized the need to compare and balance the reasons for continuing to publish the articles against the legal interest in not publicizing the relevant facts. Removal of the articles should only be required if the legal interest in keeping the facts private clearly outweighs other considerations.

Considering the content of the alleged facts, the fact that each of the articles in question was related to public interest and posted for public interest purposes, and the fact that the arrest in question no longer appears as a search result on general search sites such as Google, and the possibility of being subjected to specific disadvantages has decreased, it could be said that it is not clear that the legal interest in not having the fact of the arrest publicized is superior to the circumstances of making the articles available for public inspection.
Tokyo High Court, June 29, 2019 Decision

Applying this standard, the court made the following decisions. It considered the content of the alleged facts, the public interest nature of the posts, and the diminished visibility of the arrest in general search results like Google. The court concluded that the legal interest in not publicizing the arrest facts was not clearly superior to the circumstances of allowing public access to the articles. Consequently, the court reversed the original judgment and dismissed the plaintiff’s request for post deletion.

Supreme Court Decision: Ordered Twitter to Delete Arrest Record Posts

In response to the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim against Twitter Inc. by the High Court, the Supreme Court intervened and reversed the High Court’s decision, citing a clear violation of the law.

The Supreme Court assessed the High Court’s ruling and stated that the appellant could request the deletion of each tweet only if it was evident that the appellant’s legal interest in not disclosing the facts outweighed other considerations. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that this interpretation should consider the nature of the service provided by Twitter and the actual conditions of its use.

The Supreme Court further elaborated on the following points:

• A significant amount of time had passed between the arrest and the oral arguments in the Court of Appeals, rendering the original sentence ineffective.
• The press articles referenced in the tweets had already been removed.
• The tweets in question were made on the day of the arrest and likely aimed to inform users about the case, with no expectation of prolonged visibility.
• Searching the appellant’s name on Twitter retrieves the tweets as search results.
• The appellant does not hold an official position.

Considering these circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s legal interest in keeping the facts private outweighed the reasons for keeping the tweets publicly accessible. Therefore, the appellant had the right to demand the deletion of the tweets.

Based on this decision, the Supreme Court ordered Twitter to remove the arrest record posts.

In light of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to find that the appellant’s legal interest in not having the facts in question made public outweighs the reason for keeping the tweets available for public viewing. Therefore, the appellant may demand that the appellees delete the tweets.
Supreme Court Decision on June 24, 2022

Although the Supreme Court did not explicitly mention Twitter or its search function, it found the High Court’s interpretation to be in violation of the law. The court acknowledged that Twitter is just one of many websites on the internet and cannot be deemed an essential information distribution platform for internet users, unlike search engines such as Google that provide search results.

Summary: Seeking Legal Advice for Twitter Post Deletion

This article explored a Supreme Court case that established the possibility of requesting Twitter to delete tweets containing private information. This decision signifies that Twitter Inc. may face more requests for post deletions in the future.

We highly recommend seeking the guidance of a lawyer concerning the removal of past information on Twitter and other social media platforms. If you believe your privacy has been violated or if your tweets may infringe on the privacy of others, it is crucial to consult with a legal professional who can offer expert advice on legal matters associated with social networking sites.