What are the Issues with Presenting False Names? Explaining the Precedents of Personality Rights and Names

Personality rights, or ‘Jinkakuken’ in Japanese, refer to various rights that must be protected in our daily lives, such as life, body, freedom, and honor. These rights are guaranteed by Article 13 of the Japanese Constitution.

While personality rights encompass various aspects, it is understood that a person’s name is included within these rights as the ‘right to a name’.

So, does the use of a false name constitute an infringement of personality rights?

On the surface, a ‘name alone’ seems to have no connection to a person’s personality, virtue, reputation, or creditworthiness.

Does Falsifying a Person’s Name Constitute an Infringement of Personal Rights?

There are cases revolving around the rights associated with a person’s name.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant company, claiming that false information about their name and place of birth was published in the company’s monthly magazine. The plaintiff argued that this act damaged their personal rights, including their reputation and honor, and demanded compensation for damages and the publication of an apology advertisement from the defendant company.

Case Disputing Rights Related to Honor and Name

In the May 2006 issue of the monthly magazine “WiLL”, an article was published under the editor’s name, claiming that the Social Democratic Party’s response to the issue of North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens was insufficient. The article, titled “The ‘Honorary Party Leader of the Social Democratic Party’ Who Pleaded for the Release of the Abduction Perpetrator Shin Gwang-su”, propagated the false online narrative that Takako Doi’s real name was “Lee Goshun” and that she was of Korean Peninsula origin, as if it were a fact.

Doi’s side argued that the article was a baseless fabrication, created through one-sided speculation without any interviews with Doi, and that it had damaged her personal rights, including her credibility and honor. They sued the magazine company and others, demanding the publication of an apology advertisement in five national newspapers and 10 million yen in damages.

Claims of Both Parties

The plaintiff claimed that the content of the article was false for the following reasons:

She was born as the second daughter of Japanese parents, raised as a purebred ‘Kobe native’, and has been actively serving as a member of the Diet for 36 years, winning 12 consecutive elections with the fervent support of local voters.

Despite this, the article falsely states that the plaintiff was born in the Korean Peninsula and that her name is a Korean name. This denies her entire personality, including her words and actions to date. For those who believe the article to be true, all of the plaintiff’s social and political activities would be seen as pretentious, potentially undermining her social reputation. She argued that this was clear.

Furthermore, the plaintiff argued that it was clear that the defendants had violated her personal rights, including her sense of honor and credibility, by being raised as a purebred ‘Kobe native’.

Therefore, the defendants’ act of publishing and issuing the article not only infringes on the plaintiff’s honor, but also violates her entire personality rights and legally protected interests, constituting a tort, she argued.

In response, the defendants argued that the facts indicated in the article, namely that the plaintiff is originally from the Korean Peninsula and that her real name is “Lee Koosun”, are as follows:

These facts are inherently unrelated to a person’s personality, virtue, reputation, and credit, and should not be considered when judging the ability and qualifications to perform their duties, even in light of the plaintiff’s social status. They argued that these facts do not in any way lower the objective evaluation the plaintiff receives from society, and that it is clear that the article does not give the impression that all of the plaintiff’s words and actions to date are pretentious, but rather points out, for example, that the plaintiff has been falsifying her place of birth or nationality.

The defendants argued that pointing out that the plaintiff is originally from the Korean Peninsula and that her real name is “Lee Koosun” does not lower her social evaluation.

Court Decision

Firstly, the court considered whether the description in question could be deemed as indicating facts that would lower the plaintiff’s social reputation. The article primarily points out objective, value-neutral facts about the plaintiff, such as his real name being “Lee Koosun” and his origin being the Korean Peninsula. The court acknowledged that these descriptions could potentially lower the plaintiff’s social reputation.

However,

The article in question criticizes the Social Democratic Party’s stance on the abduction of Japanese citizens by North Korea. From the perspective of an average reader with normal attention and reading comprehension, the article suggests that one of the reasons why the Social Democratic Party’s response to the abduction of Japanese citizens by North Korea was inadequate is because the plaintiff, who is from the Korean Peninsula and has a name that appears to be Korean, prioritized the interests of his home country over the safety and other interests of the Japanese people. This gives the impression that the plaintiff, who has been a member of the House of Representatives for many years and has even served as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the leader of the Social Democratic Party, has been engaging in actions unbecoming of a Japanese politician. It is clear that this lowers the plaintiff’s social reputation.

Kobe District Court, Amagasaki Branch, November 13, 2008 (2008)

The court recognized this as defamation. Regarding the name, the court stated:

A person’s name is the foundation of their respect as an individual and a symbol of their personality. It forms part of their personal rights. It is natural for a person to view their name and place of origin as important elements of their personality and to have a strong attachment to them (it is clear from the overall argument that the plaintiff has a strong attachment to his name and place of origin). Therefore, even if the description in question points out value-neutral facts about the name and place of origin, it can be considered as infringing on the plaintiff’s sense of honor and personal interests because it clearly describes false facts.

Same as above

The court acknowledged that even if the description points out value-neutral facts about the name and place of origin, there may be cases where the right to the name, which is part of personal rights, is infringed. The court ordered the defendants to pay 2 million yen in compensation for emotional distress, but did not recognize the necessity of an apology advertisement due to the small number of actual sales.

The Osaka High Court upheld the first instance judgment and dismissed the defendant’s appeal. The Supreme Court also supported the judgments of the first and second instances, dismissed the defendant’s final appeal, and the judgment is final.

https://monolith.law/reputation/defamation-and-decline-in-social-reputation[ja]

Case Disputing Rights Related to Names

In February 2016, an article was posted on a bulletin board called textream, which was once operated by Yahoo! JAPAN. The article was about a plaintiff who had resigned from a company in Miyagi Prefecture, and it read, “Let’s call back Mr. XXXX, a former executive of company A, also known as ZZZZ, a Korean resident in Japan!”

In June 2017, the plaintiff sent a document to Yahoo! JAPAN stating that “information contrary to the fact that the plaintiff is a Korean resident in Japan has been posted, which has significantly infringed on the plaintiff’s personal rights and honor.” The plaintiff attached a copy of his family register to the document, demanding measures to prevent the transmission of the article in question.

However, Yahoo! JAPAN refused to delete the article in September of the same year, so the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in November seeking the deletion of the posted article and compensation for emotional distress.

Arguments of Both Parties

The plaintiff argued that the posted article falsely identified him as a Korean resident in Japan, ZZZZ as his alias, and XXXX as his real name. He claimed that people naturally have a strong attachment to their names and places of origin, which are important components of their personalities. Even if the false facts about a person’s name and place of origin do not lower their social evaluation, they should be considered an infringement of the person’s personal rights (personal interests). He demanded the deletion of the article and compensation for damages based on tort for not deleting it.

In response, the defendant, Yahoo! JAPAN, argued that the posted article was about calling the plaintiff back to the company’s headquarters, and it could be read as if the plaintiff was a necessary talent for the company. Therefore, the article did not lower the plaintiff’s social evaluation. Considering that there are no Supreme Court precedents or lower court judgments that recognize the right to request the deletion of posted articles based on personal rights in cases like this, it cannot be said with certainty that the posted article is illegal. Therefore, they argued that they do not bear any liability for damages based on tort for not deleting the posted article.

Objectively judging, the phrase “Let’s call back Mr. XXXX, also known as ZZZZ, a Korean resident in Japan!” is not a favorable article, but rather a derogatory and harassing article that labels the plaintiff as a Korean resident in Japan. It can be said that the response is questionable.

Judgment of the Court

The court first acknowledged that the plaintiff has Japanese nationality and is not a Korean resident in Japan, and that the plaintiff’s real name is ZZZZ, not XXXX, which can be easily confirmed by evidence. The court acknowledged that the posted article contains false facts about the plaintiff’s name and origin/nationality.

The court then pointed out a precedent of the Supreme Court, which is as follows:

“A name, from a social perspective, has the function of distinguishing and identifying an individual from others. At the same time, from the individual’s perspective, a name is the basis for being respected as an individual and a symbol of the individual’s personality, constituting part of the personal rights. Therefore, an individual has a personal interest that can be protected under tort law in being accurately called by his or her name by others.” Supreme Court Judgment, February 16, 1988 (Showa 63)

In response to this, the court stated that a person’s origin/nationality is generally understood to be deeply tied to the formation of their personality, and it is normal for a person to have a strong attachment to their origin/nationality. The court denied Yahoo! JAPAN’s argument that “the posted article does not lower the plaintiff’s social evaluation.”

“The defendant argues that the posted article is about calling the plaintiff back to company A’s headquarters, and it can be read as if the plaintiff is a necessary talent for company A, so the posted article does not lower the plaintiff’s social evaluation. However, the problem with the posted article is not whether it lowers the plaintiff’s social evaluation, but that it contains false facts about the plaintiff’s name and origin/nationality, and this infringes on the plaintiff’s personal interest in having his name and origin/nationality correctly recognized by third parties.” Sendai District Court Judgment, July 9, 2018 (Heisei 30)

The court then stated that the defendant should have been aware of the Supreme Court’s 1988 precedent mentioned earlier, and it is presumed that the defendant knew that the posted article contained false facts about the plaintiff’s name and origin/nationality by July 1, 2017, one week after the attached documents were submitted. The court awarded the plaintiff emotional distress damages of 15,000 yen per month until the end of the oral argument of this lawsuit on May 10, 2018 (Heisei 30), and ordered the payment of 154,838 yen (calculation: 15,000 yen x 10 months + 15,000 yen ÷ 31 days x 10 days) and the deletion of the posted article.

According to Yahoo! JAPAN’s argument, even if false facts about a person’s name and origin/nationality are pointed out and the person is harassed, the person should tolerate it if it does not lower their social evaluation. However, having one’s name and origin/nationality correctly recognized by third parties is a comprehensive personal right that includes feelings of honor and credit, and there is absolutely no reason to protect the freedom of expression of a sender who points out false facts and harasses others.

https://monolith.law/reputation/provider-liability-limitation-law-reques[ja]

Summary

Even if the issue is not whether your social reputation will be damaged, there may be cases where you can assert personal rights other than the right to honor when you are subjected to slander, unfair attacks, or harassment.

Even if you think it does not constitute defamation, please consult with an experienced attorney.

Introduction to Our Firm’s Measures

Monolith Law Office is a legal office with high expertise in both IT, particularly the Internet, and law. In recent years, information related to reputational damage and defamation spread on the Internet has been causing serious harm as a “digital tattoo”.

Even false information about a person’s name, if left unattended, could cause significant damage that cannot be overlooked. Our firm provides solutions for such online information measures. Details are provided in the article below.