Does a Minor Perpetrator of Defamation Still Bear Liability for Damages?
There is an increasing number of issues involving defamation on the internet, particularly caused by or affecting younger individuals. The majority of these issues involve those aged 12 to 18, and there is growing concern about their low level of ‘Internet Literacy’.
Even if they are minors, if they infringe on the rights of others through defamation, they will be treated the same as adults.
In this article, we will provide a detailed explanation of how courts judge cases where the perpetrator of online defamation is a minor.
Case of Defamation Against a Lawyer by a Junior High School Student
A lawyer, who was also a graduate student while working, sought damages from a second-year junior high school student who posted defamatory comments on a bulletin board, damaging the lawyer’s and related parties’ reputation.
Progress of the Lawsuit
The defendant repeatedly posted defamatory comments on the Shitaraba bulletin board for 38 minutes from 4:08 pm to 4:46 pm on May 9, 2015. Specifically, the defendant posted false facts such as:
- “Assaulting the client who requested defense”
- “Pouring boiling water on a late subordinate”
- “Having a criminal record”
Furthermore, the defendant used strong negative words such as:
“Incompetent”, “Shit”, “Trash”, “Arrest”, “Criminal”, “Disqualified as a lawyer”, “Death penalty”, “Escape from prison”, “Disciplinary dismissal”, “Cover-up”, “Fear”, “Danger”, “Bribery”, “Child pornography”
The plaintiff claimed that these comments lowered their social evaluation and interfered with their work as a lawyer, and demanded damages.
Claims of the Defendant and the Plaintiff
The claims of the plaintiff and the defendant are as follows:
(Defendant’s claim)
Tokyo District Court, June 21, 2016 (2016) Judgment
The defendant was a 13-year-old second-year junior high school student at the time of the illegal act on May 9, 2015 (Heisei 27). Therefore, it is impossible to say that the defendant had the same sufficient judgment as an adult, and the defendant had no ability to pay. (Omitted) Considering the defendant’s judgment ability, it is impossible to say that the defendant had a sufficient understanding of the social mission of a lawyer, and therefore, the illegality is not high.
(Plaintiff’s claim)
Tokyo District Court, June 21, 2016 (2016) Judgment
Although the defendant was a 13-year-old second-year junior high school student at the time of each post, a 13-year-old normally has the intelligence to understand the responsibility of their actions. Also, the presence or absence of the ability to pay does not affect the success or failure of the illegal act or the evaluation of the amount of compensation.
The point of contention was how much responsibility should be borne by minors.
Judgment of the Court
The court acknowledged defamation, stating that “the content of the post lowers the social evaluation of the plaintiff”. Regarding the defendant’s age, the court stated:
Although the defendant was a 13-year-old second-year junior high school student at the time of each post, it is undeniable that minors of the same age are inferior in their ability to make appropriate judgments due to their lack of social experience compared to adults. On the other hand, it can be considered that they have grown to the extent that they can abstractly understand what kind of work a lawyer does. (Omitted) Also, regarding the offender’s ability to pay, it cannot be said that it significantly affects the amount of consolation money in this case.
Tokyo District Court, June 21, 2016 (2016) Judgment
The court accepted the plaintiff’s claim and ordered the defendant to pay damages of 400,000 yen.
https://monolith.law/reputation/defamation[ja]
Case of Defamation Among Classmates at a Cram School
A case occurred where a junior high school student attending the same cram school posted defamatory comments on an anonymous bulletin board, damaging the social reputation of another student. The victim sought damages for the tortious act.
Progress of the Lawsuit
Although the defendant and the plaintiff had never spoken directly, they attended the same English cram school. The defendant learned about the blog run by the plaintiff from another student. Disliking the content, the defendant and his acquaintances began posting defamatory comments on an anonymous bulletin board.
- “This guy seems to want to be exposed on the ○○ site. He’s getting carried away, and it’s really annoying. Please, troll him.”
- “Troll this guy’s blog.”
With the intention of harassment, the defendant posted comments encouraging trolling on a thread titled “Expose the Painful Guy,” and posted false information stating that the plaintiff, whose junior high school, grade, and name were explicitly mentioned, was a person with a weak sense of sexual morality who would have sexual intercourse with anyone.
Court’s Judgment
Firstly, the court acknowledged that the defendant’s post clearly lowered the plaintiff’s social reputation, thus infringing upon his right to honor.
The court made the following judgment regarding the defendant’s age:
The posting of the article in question is thought to have been caused by the resentment of junior high school students of the same age towards the plaintiff’s blog. It can be evaluated as a manifestation of the risks of exposing oneself to the internet society at a young age, and it can also be seen as something that the defendant, who is immature both physically and mentally, did on a whim.
Tokyo District Court, December 20, 2012 (Gregorian calendar year) Judgment
In this way, the court held that the defendant was at fault due to his immaturity, strictly pursued his responsibility, and ordered him to pay a total of 770,000 yen, including 500,000 yen for emotional distress, 200,000 yen for investigation costs, and 70,000 yen for attorney’s fees.
https://monolith.law/reputation/defamation-and-decline-in-social-reputation[ja]
Summary
There is a risk that young people, who may not be fully capable of making moral judgments, may impulsively accept and post information spread on the Internet.
Even if the action was thoughtless, the responsibility for infringing on the rights of others is serious, and one cannot escape responsibility simply because they are a minor. There is a possibility of being sued for damages. The generally accepted minimum age for recognizing legal responsibility is around 11 to 14 years old.
If you have been a victim of defamation by a minor, it is advisable to consult with a specialized attorney promptly.
Category: Internet
