What are X's (Formerly Twitter) Strategies for Dealing with Defamation? An Explanation of the Request for Deletion Process

In recent years, the proliferation of social media has made it easy for anyone to share information freely. However, this has also led to an increase in posts containing defamation and slander. Notably, X (formerly known as Twitter) is a platform where users are particularly susceptible to such harmful content.

This article will introduce specific measures to counter defamation on X. Furthermore, we will explain the detailed steps you should take to request the removal of defamatory content when you become a victim of such offenses.

Reasons for the Prevalence of Defamation on X (formerly Twitter)

Since its launch on March 21, 2006, X (formerly Twitter) has seen a steady increase in its user base, with the number of users in Japan alone announced to be 45 million as of October 2017. While it is a famous social networking service (SNS) used by people all over the world, not just in Japan, it has also been plagued with numerous issues of defamation.

As the number of users increases, so does the volume of posts, which unfortunately includes a rise in defamatory content. However, the prevalence of defamation is due to various factors beyond just the sheer number of users, which we will explain in detail.

High Anonymity and Low Barrier to Aggressive Posting

X (formerly Twitter) allows users to create accounts without the need to register their real names. It is an SNS with high anonymity, where users can operate under self-chosen account names. Posts do not reveal one’s real name, and unless the user chooses to share it, their residence and other personal information remain unknown to other users. This high level of anonymity significantly lowers the barrier to aggressive posting, including attacks.

Features that Enhance Virality

X (formerly Twitter) is equipped with a retweet (repost) feature, allowing users to freely repost their own or others’ messages. With just a tap or click, information can be easily disseminated, making its virality extremely potent. If influential users with many followers share a post, its reach can expand even further, rapidly spreading information throughout society.

Many Users with Poor Information Literacy

On SNS platforms like X (formerly Twitter), there are users known as “impression zombies” who are desperate to rack up views on their posts. These users prioritize going viral over the content of their posts. In their quest for virality, they may resort to posting defamatory content and intentionally provoking controversy. Particularly on X, with its high anonymity and large user base, there is a significant number of impression zombies with poor information literacy.

Legal Actions Available for Defamation on X (formerly Twitter)

X (formerly Twitter), a social networking service with a vast user base, inevitably sees a high volume of defamatory posts. Consequently, anyone could become a target of defamation. Even if you do not regularly use X, there is a risk of being defamed on the platform without your knowledge. When faced with defamation, it is crucial not to ignore it or suffer in silence but to take appropriate legal action. This section will explain the legal measures you should consider if you are subjected to defamation on X.

Criminal Penalties for Defamation and Insult

If defamation or slander occurs on X (formerly Twitter), depending on the content, one may be subject to criminal penalties such as those for the crime of defamation (Japanese Penal Code Article 230) or the crime of insult (Japanese Penal Code Article 231). The crime of defamation is defined as follows:

Any person who publicly presents facts and thereby damages the reputation of another person shall be punished with imprisonment with or without work for not more than three years or a fine of not more than 500,000 yen, regardless of whether the facts are true or not.

Reference: Evolution of the Provisions on the Crimes of Insult and Defamation | Ministry of Justice[ja]

When applying this to posts on X, the conditions for the crime of defamation are as follows:

• It must be done publicly
• It must present facts
• It must damage someone’s reputation

Posts that are viewable by an unspecified large number of people and contain content that damages the reputation of the subject, leading to a lower social evaluation, may constitute defamation. Whether the presented facts are true or not is irrelevant to the establishment of the crime of defamation.

Furthermore, the crime of insult is defined as follows:

Any person who publicly insults another person without presenting facts shall be punished with detention or a petty fine.

Reference: Evolution of the Provisions on the Crimes of Insult and Defamation | Ministry of Justice[ja]

When applying this to posts on X, the conditions for the crime of insult are as follows:

• It must be done publicly
• The content must be insulting

The requirement of being “done publicly” is common to both the crime of defamation and insult, but a significant difference for the crime of insult is that it does not require the presentation of facts. Actions such as replying to or quoting retweets on X with posts that say “idiot,” “ugly,” or “creepy” could potentially constitute an insult. However, messages sent individually via direct mail do not meet the condition of being “done publicly,” and therefore, neither the crime of defamation nor insult is established.

Claims for Damages (Compensation for Emotional Distress, etc.)

If you have been defamed on social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), you can claim damages, including compensation for emotional distress, against the party responsible for the defamation. If you have suffered harm due to posts that damage your reputation or unauthorized posting of personal information and photographs, you can claim civil damages and compensation for emotional distress, separate from any criminal penalties. The amount of damages is determined by factors such as the content and frequency of the posts and can range from tens of thousands to over a million yen, varying significantly depending on the case.

Claims for damages are civil disputes and are separate from criminal penalties for defamation or insult. Therefore, even if a court has already determined that the actions do not constitute criminal defamation or insult under the Japanese Penal Code, there is still a possibility that a claim for civil damages may be recognized.

X Company’s (Formerly Twitter) Rules for Handling Defamatory Posts

X Company (formerly Twitter) has established its own rules to address defamatory posts, and it is not the case that the company is taking no action against them.

Posts Prohibited by X (Formerly Twitter)

Firstly, X Company (formerly Twitter) prohibits several types of content in posts. Among these, the following are related to content that can lead to defamation:

Violent speech: Expressing or inciting violence or harm, threatening, or praising such acts, as well as expressing a desire to commit them, is prohibited. Aggressive behavior/harassment: Sharing aggressive content, targeting specific individuals for harassment, or inciting others to do so is prohibited. Hate conduct: Attacking others based on race, ethnicity, origin, social status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religion, age, disability, or serious illness is prohibited.

Source: X Rules | X Help Center

As these rules indicate, posts that attack or harass others are prohibited on X. By banning aggressive content, the company aims to prevent defamation.

Account Suspension Measures on X (Formerly Twitter)

While violating the rules on X (formerly Twitter) does not immediately result in criminal penalties, it can lead to account suspension (freezing). Typical examples of accounts that may be suspended include ‘impersonation accounts’ and ‘accounts created with the purpose of attacking individuals’.

Impersonation accounts are those that post while pretending to be celebrities. Depending on the content of the impersonation posts, they could potentially defame the reputation of the impersonated celebrity.

Furthermore, ‘accounts created with the purpose of attacking individuals’ can lead to defamatory posts through aggressive content. These accounts may be suspended based on user reports or X Company’s discretion.

Response and Removal Requests for Defamation on X (Formerly Twitter)

While X (formerly Twitter) does address posts that contain defamation based on its own rules, these actions are ultimately based on the discretion of X company. Even if you report to X company, there is no guarantee that they will take measures such as suspending the account, nor is it certain that they will respond promptly. Therefore, it is necessary to take appropriate action yourself. Here, we will explain how to respond to defamation on your own and how to request the removal of posts.

Self-Initiated Removal Requests to X (Formerly Twitter) Company

If you are subjected to defamation, you can request X (formerly Twitter) company to remove the post yourself. By promptly reporting the violation to X company yourself, you may be able to expedite the removal of the post or the suspension of the account.

The procedure for requesting removal from X company is as follows:

1. Navigate to the post you want to report
2. Click or tap the menu icon (…) at the top
3. Select [Report Post]

In addition to reporting directly from the post in question, you can also report through the inquiry form on the “Help Center”.

Removal Requests Through a Lawyer

While it is possible to request the removal of content from X (formerly Twitter) company on your own, there is no guarantee that they will comply with the request. Furthermore, you may not receive a response regarding when they will address the issue. It is difficult to deal with defamation solely through personal reports to X company.

It is also possible to contact the poster directly via direct message to request removal, but this carries the risk of exacerbating the situation. Therefore, we recommend that you seek the assistance of a lawyer and pursue legal proceedings through the courts, as described later.

Handling Unapproved Deletion Requests for Defamation on X (Formerly Twitter)

Even if you personally report defamation on X (formerly Twitter), or request deletion through a lawyer, there are times when your request may not be approved. This article explains how to respond when a deletion request on X is not granted.

Seek Legal Action Through a Lawyer

If your request for deletion is not approved by X (formerly Twitter), you can file for a provisional injunction with the court to have the post removed. Court procedures require you to argue based on the law which rights have been violated, which can be challenging to do on your own. It is also advisable to hire a lawyer to gather effective evidence for the court proceedings.

By hiring a lawyer, you can not only seek the removal of the post through legal procedures but also identify the user who defamed you and claim damages, or file a criminal complaint with the police for crimes such as defamation or insult.

Consult with the Police

Legal proceedings in court can be time-consuming and laborious, so consulting with the police first can also be a good approach. If the content of the post is threatening enough to make you fear for your safety, or if it constitutes defamation or insult, consulting with the police may prompt them to take action as a criminal case.

Especially in cases of threatening posts that make you fear for your life, it is crucial to get the police to act quickly to protect your personal safety.

Even when you go to the police, it may end with just a “consultation.” In such cases, you have options such as filing a victim report, or formally accusing or reporting the perpetrator. As the appropriate response varies depending on the case, it is recommended that you consult with a lawyer about what actions are possible with the police.

Defamation on X (formerly Twitter) and Requests for Disclosure of Sender Information

If you are subjected to defamation on the internet, such as on X (formerly Twitter), you can request the disclosure of information to identify who made the post. This right is defined under Article 5 of the Japanese Provider Liability Limitation Law and is a right of the victim. Identifying the poster can be crucial, as it may be difficult to take legal action if the identity of the person responsible for the defamation is unknown. Here, we will explain the process for requesting the disclosure of sender information and provide important points to consider when making such a request.

What is a Request for Disclosure of Sender Information?

In cases where one suffers from defamation or similar harm on social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) or internet forums, it may be possible to claim damages. However, if the posts or comments are made anonymously, it becomes impossible to identify the perpetrator and thus, to claim compensation.

This is where the procedure known as a “Request for Disclosure of Sender Information” comes into play. Even if the posts on the internet are made anonymously, providers retain certain information such as IP addresses. Using these clues, it is sometimes possible to track down the sender. Once the sender is identified, it becomes easier to take legal actions such as filing for damages or initiating criminal charges.

Attention to the Period for Disclosure Requests and the Retention Period of Logs

While a request for the disclosure of sender information may identify the sender, it is crucial to be aware of the time it takes to process such a request. Providers have varying log retention periods, and some may only keep logs for a short duration, such as approximately three months. Consequently, even if a disclosure request is made, once the retention period has lapsed, it becomes impossible to identify the sender.

Therefore, it is extremely important to act swiftly before the log retention period expires. Consult with an attorney early to proceed with the disclosure request. It may be necessary to petition the court for a provisional disposition to preserve log data or to prohibit the deletion of sender information.

Circumstances Where a Sender Disclosure Request May Not Be Granted

Under Article 5 of the Japanese Provider Liability Limitation Law (プロバイダ責任制限法), there are provisions for victims of defamation to request the disclosure of sender information. However, filing a request does not guarantee that it will be granted. To receive the disclosure of sender information, all of the following requirements must be met:

• The information must have been distributed via specific telecommunications.
• The request must come from a person claiming their rights have been violated.
• The rights violation must be clear.
• There must be a legitimate reason for seeking the disclosure of information.
• The opposing party must be a disclosure-related service provider.
• The content for which disclosure is sought must correspond to sender information.

In the case of a sender disclosure request for defamation on X (formerly Twitter), the key points among the requirements are that “the rights violation must be clear” and “there must be a legitimate reason for seeking the disclosure of information.”

Regarding “the rights violation must be clear,” a request may not be granted for posts that are merely suggestive rather than explicitly defamatory. Even if a post clearly defames someone by name and lowers their social status, if it has public or social interest and is not contrary to the facts, it is not considered illegal, and the disclosure request will not be granted.

Furthermore, concerning “there must be a legitimate reason for seeking the disclosure of information,” reasons such as “wanting to know who wrote it” are unlikely to be considered legitimate. Legitimate reasons that make a disclosure request more likely to be granted include specific intentions such as “to claim damages,” “to request the removal of a post,” “to seek measures for reputation restoration,” or “to file a criminal complaint.”

For more information on the procedure for sender disclosure requests on X, please refer to the following article.

Examples of Recognized Defamation on X (formerly Twitter)

We will introduce actual cases where claims for damages and criminal liability were recognized due to defamation on X (formerly Twitter).

Case Recognized for Damages Due to Defamation

There is a case where a user, who was continuously defamed by an anonymous user on X (formerly Twitter), successfully identified the perpetrator and claimed damages, which were granted by the court (Saitama District Court, July 17, Reiwa 1 (2019) decision).

This case involved the same individual repeatedly posting defamatory content under different accounts from 2017 to 2019.

The female victim of defamation reported the violations to Twitter but did not receive a response, so she filed a lawsuit after identifying the poster through a disclosure request for sender information.

As a result of the trial, the court recognized the actions as defamation and ordered the payment of 2.6 million yen, which included 2 million yen for emotional distress and additional legal fees. Furthermore, the court also ordered a daily payment of 10,000 yen until an apology letter was issued, in addition to the damages.

This is a rare case where a high amount of 2 million yen for emotional distress was ordered, even though Twitter did not respond to the report.

Cases Where Damage Claims for Retweets Have Been Recognized

In the case of X (formerly Twitter), there have been instances where damage claims have been recognized even for retweets that quote someone else’s post (Osaka High Court decision, June 23, Reiwa 2 (2020)[ja]). A former governor sought damages, claiming that a journalist’s retweet constituted defamation, and this claim was upheld in both the first and second trials. This case demonstrates that even if the content is a retweet of someone else’s post, if it includes content that lowers a person’s social evaluation, there is a possibility that damages for defamation may be recognized.

There have also been cases where damage claims were made concerning posts from private (locked) accounts. In this case, the issue was whether posts from a private account lacked publicness. However, even with a private account, if multiple approved users can view the posts, and other users can view or retweet them upon approval, the court rejected the argument that it lacked publicness and recognized the damage claim.

Thus, there are precedents where retweets are considered equivalent to the original speaker’s statements, and private accounts are not considered to lack publicness.

Related article: Does Defamation Occur in Private Twitter Accounts? Explaining Two Precedents[ja]

Case Recognized as a Crime of Insult Due to Defamation

In May 2020, a tragic incident occurred where Hana Kimura, a female professional wrestler, took her own life after suffering from defamation on social media platforms such as Twitter (at the time). Her appearance on a television program broadcasted in March had sparked outrage among viewers, leading to a barrage of heartless defamatory comments on her social media, including phrases like “Die, you scum” and “Disgusting.”

The news of Hana Kimura’s suicide, driven by the defamation from television viewers, was widely covered by the media. Following a complaint by her mother and other family members, several individuals who posted defamatory comments were charged with the crime of insult. Notably, one man, whose posts were particularly malicious, was summarily indicted by the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor’s Office and found guilty of a petty fine—a lighter financial penalty than a fine as stipulated by the Penal Code.

This case became a significant example of a criminal investigation that led to the imposition of criminal penalties on the perpetrator, casting a spotlight on the issue of defamation on the internet. Furthermore, as a result of this incident, on June 13, 2022, the statutory penalty for the crime of insult was increased from “detention or a petty fine” to “imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to 300,000 yen, or detention or a petty fine,” thus intensifying the punishment for such offenses.

Summary: Consult a Lawyer Promptly for Defamation and Removal Requests on X (Formerly Twitter)

Defamation on platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) can happen to anyone, and it is not an issue solely for those who are not active on social media. If you find yourself a victim of defamation, it is crucial to act promptly.

There are various measures you can take, from requesting the removal of posts to seeking disclosure of the poster’s information and claiming damages. However, handling these issues on your own can be quite challenging and burdensome, which is why we recommend consulting with a lawyer.

In particular, with requests for the disclosure of the poster’s information, there is the issue of log retention periods, so it is vital to consult with a lawyer quickly before evidence is lost. Promptly addressing the removal of defamatory posts and taking legal action is essential in resolving issues of defamation.

Guidance on Measures by Our Firm

Monolith Law Office is a legal practice with extensive experience in both IT, particularly the internet, and legal matters. In recent years, information related to reputational damage and defamation spread online has caused serious harm as a ‘digital tattoo.’ Our firm provides solutions to combat these ‘digital tattoos.’ Please refer to the article below for more details.

Areas of practice at Monolith Law Office: Digital Tattoo[ja]