Is 'Radiation Brain' Defamation? Judging Internet Slang in Libel and Slander Cases

Internet slang, a unique and often incomprehensible form of expression on the web, may not be familiar to the general public. Sometimes, it is used to criticize specific individuals or companies.

How is such internet slang interpreted and handled in court?

Let’s discuss actual court cases where it was disputed whether expressions like “Radiation Brain” and “DQN Company” infringe on the right to honor.

Post Labelled as “Radiation Brain”

Case Overview

The plaintiff, a company employee who uploads video works related to the anti-nuclear movement on a video sharing service and earns advertising revenue, filed a lawsuit. The plaintiff claimed that the post titled “Radiation Brain” on an anonymous bulletin board constituted an infringement of rights, and requested the disclosure of the sender’s information.

https://monolith.law/reputation/disclosure-of-the-senders-information[ja]

On the bulletin board, the poster specifically mentioned the plaintiff’s real name and occupation, and posted comments such as:

• “Anti-nuclear/Radiation Brain”
• “Self-righteous and famous in some circles”
• “Self-indulgent”
• “Lenient on oneself but strict on others”

The term “Radiation Brain” is an internet slang used to mock people who distort and exaggerate facts and information about nuclear power and radiation issues, excessively fear radiation, and advocate for nuclear power phase-out. The plaintiff claimed that his reputation was damaged by these series of posts.

On the other hand, the defendant argued that the post was merely expressing a “negative evaluation” of the plaintiff. Even if it pointed out specific facts, the mention of “Anti-nuclear/Radiation Brain” was a “critical review of the plaintiff’s comments on the public interest issue of the existence of nuclear power plants,” the defendant countered.

Court’s Decision

The court acknowledged the infringement of the plaintiff’s reputation by the expressions raised by the plaintiff. Furthermore, it did not accept the defendant’s claim that the post was “related to the public interest,” and ordered the disclosure of the sender’s information.

Firstly, the court evaluated the term “Radiation Brain” as follows:

“Radiation Brain” is an internet slang that mocks people who distort and exaggerate facts and information about nuclear power and radiation issues, and excessively advocate the threat of radiation. (omitted) If read in the usual way, the plaintiff is a person who distorts and exaggerates facts and information about nuclear power and radiation issues, and excessively advocates the threat of radiation.

Tokyo District Court, September 12, 2014 (2014 in Gregorian calendar year) Judgment

If the term “Radiation Brain” is interpreted as a derogatory expression according to the standard of the “general reader” of the bulletin board, it is natural to conclude this judgment.

https://monolith.law/reputation/die-libel-threatening-crime2[ja]

Posts Labeling Companies as “Black Corporations” and “DQN Companies”

Case Overview

This case involves trouble within an anonymous online forum. A company engaged in the manufacture and sale of electrical machinery and chemical equipment was slandered online with the following comments:

• “Black corporation”
• “DQN company”
• “Day-return prison”
• “Easily laid off”

The company, claiming that its reputation and honor had been damaged, requested the disclosure of the poster’s information from the internet service provider. However, the provider refused to disclose the information, arguing that the use of expressions such as “black corporation” and “DQN company” did not defame the plaintiff’s reputation. This led to a lawsuit.

Court Decision

The court acknowledged that the plaintiff’s reputation had been damaged by posts such as “black corporation” and “DQN company,” and ordered the disclosure of the poster’s information.

The court defined the term “black corporation” as follows:

An internet slang term referring to companies that force their employees to work under conditions that violate or potentially violate labor laws and other regulations, or that impose on their employees business practices that may violate related laws. These companies also habitually use power harassment as a means of coercion, imposing excessive physical, mental, and financial burdens on their employees that are disproportionate to their wages and benefits, and are unrelated to their original duties.

Regarding the use of the term “DQN company,” the court stated:

“It can be recognized as an internet slang term used synonymously with ‘black company.’ Judging by the attention and interpretation of general readers, the article gives the impression that the plaintiff is overpowering those who criticize it for forcing its employees to work in poor conditions without complying with labor laws and other regulations. (Omitted) It can be said that it lowers the plaintiff’s social evaluation by pointing out specific facts.”

Tokyo District Court, September 2, 2010 (2010)

The court accepted the plaintiff’s argument.

https://monolith.law/reputation/illegal-posting-black-companies-in5ch[ja]

Summary

Even if it’s internet slang that is not commonly known to the general public, it will be interpreted according to the understanding of the ‘general readers’ of the bulletin boards and other platforms where it is used. Even if the expression is not direct, there is no need to give up on litigation.

In preparation for a trial, it is necessary to thoroughly prepare documents, and various checks are required to understand what the internet slang means and whether it truly infringes on the right to honor.

These procedures can be difficult for a layperson, and we recommend consulting with an experienced attorney.