Can Extreme Online Posts Be Considered Threats? Are 'I'll Kill You' and 'Die' Considered Threats?

Posting content that defames or slanders others on social media, blogs, or bulletin boards can lead to criminal charges. If the content of the post is too extreme, it may even constitute a threat, which is a criminal offense. So, what kind of content can be considered a threat? Let’s explain this using actual examples from case law.

In 2008, Mieko Kawakami, who won the 138th Akutagawa Prize for “Breasts and Eggs”, sought damages after threatening and defamatory content was posted about her on ‘5channel’ and blogs. The verdict was handed down by the Tokyo District Court on June 10, 2021 (Reiwa 3), where the court recognized the threats and ordered the defendant to pay damages.

Case Background

In October 2018, the defendant woman posted on “5chan” saying, “I really wish you would die,” and “I have no choice but to do it” (hereinafter referred to as Post ①). In August and September of the same year, she posted, “I could do it on November 18th if I wanted to,” and “I’m always ready” (hereinafter referred to as Post ②). In October, she posted, “When will I execute it?”, “Yes, this is a warning,” “I will clear my grudge,” and “Direct action” (hereinafter referred to as Post ③).

The plaintiff was scheduled to appear at a public dialogue event at Aoyama Book Center on November 18th of the same year and had announced it on his blog and other platforms. However, after consulting with the police about Posts ① and ③, the police officer who responded requested that the plaintiff cancel his appearance at the event, which he did.

The plaintiff requested the disclosure of sender information for each post, received the disclosure of poster information from the operator and the provider through which the posts were made, and filed a lawsuit against the defendant for damages based on tort, claiming that the defendant had posted articles threatening the plaintiff or defaming his reputation.

About the Crime of Intimidation

The crime of intimidation is a serious offense defined in Article 222 of the Japanese Penal Code. If you slander someone with threatening words, you may be charged with the crime of intimidation.

1. A person who threatens another by announcing an intention to harm their life, body, freedom, honor, or property shall be punished by imprisonment for up to 2 years or a fine of up to 300,000 yen.

Article 222 of the Japanese Penal Code (Intimidation)

If you make a post that falls under the above, the crime of intimidation is a non-prosecutable offense, which means you may be punished even if the victim does not file a criminal complaint.

Intimidation and “Notification of Harm”

The crime of intimidation is established when a person (or their relative) is notified of an intention to harm their life, body, freedom, honor, or property. This is referred to as “notification of harm”.

There are no restrictions on how to notify harm. It can be established not only by verbal or written means, but also by behavior, as long as the victim can understand it. Of course, if you send a threatening message to the other party via LINE or email, it is considered a “notification” and constitutes the crime of intimidation.

Even posts on the internet can be considered a “notification of harm” if they are sufficient to instill fear in the other party. For example, if you post on the other party’s SNS or your own blog, or on an anonymous bulletin board, and it is recognized as a “notification of harm”, you may be held criminally and civilly liable.

https://monolith.law/reputation/intimidation-duress[ja]

Establishment of the Crime of Intimidation

There are several conditions for the crime of intimidation to be established. In the case we discussed in another article on our site, “Is a post saying ‘Die’ defamation? Explaining two disputed precedents”, a company executive who had been repeatedly posted with phrases like “Die”, “Die quickly”, “Die soon”, etc., over a period of about a month, claimed damages. The crime of insult was recognized, but the crime of intimidation was not.

The court considered that these posts merely used the expression “Die” and did not use expressions like “Kill”. They also considered that the posts did not announce specific facts about the act of killing, such as the date, place, and method, and therefore did not recognize that the posts indicated an intention to kill the plaintiff.

In this case, the court did not recognize that the posts suggested any specific facts about the plaintiff, and did not recognize that they implied any specific facts about the plaintiff when read with ordinary care and interpretation by a general reader. Therefore, they did not lower the social evaluation of the plaintiff, and the crime of defamation was not recognized.

In order for the crime of intimidation to be recognized, it must be judged as a whole, and certain conditions must be met. So, what was the case here?

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

Court’s Judgment on the Crime of Intimidation

The court first considered whether Article ① posted on “5chan” was illegal as a notification of harm.

The posted articles include phrases such as “I really think you should die” and “I have no choice but to do it” (Article ①), and “I could do it on November 18th if I wanted to” and “I’m always ready” (Article ②). These suggest that the defendant, who is the poster, has the intention to commit an act of killing or injuring the plaintiff at the event in question or other opportunities, or is preparing for it, and can be said to display an intention to harm the plaintiff’s life or body.

Tokyo District Court Judgment, June 10, 2021

The court recognized it as illegal as a notification of harm, judging from the fact that it mentioned a specific method of “stabbing” and announced a specific date of the public dialogue event, “November 18th”.

On the other hand, regarding whether Article ③ is illegal as a notification of harm, although it includes phrases such as “when to execute it” and “yes, this is a notification”, the court did not recognize it as illegal because there is no mention of anything that corresponds to “execution” or a notification of harm to the plaintiff when viewed as a whole.

However, Article ③ includes phrases such as “clearing a grudge” and “direct action”, which can be interpreted as suggesting an act of harming life or body, and when viewed as a whole, it can be recognized as displaying an intention to commit an act of harming the plaintiff’s life or body, and was recognized as illegal as a notification of harm.

On the other hand, the defendant argued that he had no intention of carrying out the harmful acts against the plaintiff mentioned in these notifications of harm, but the court stated that this was a “subjective circumstance of the defendant” and did not directly affect the illegality.

Even if you slander others and make threats that can be considered a notification of harm, and then argue that you “had no intention of carrying it out”, it will be considered a “subjective circumstance of the defendant”.

Court’s Decision on Damages

The court, considering the circumstances such as the plaintiff’s cancellation of their appearance at an event due to the threat, and the fact that the threat was an expression of intent to harm the plaintiff’s life and body, acknowledged a consolation payment of 1 million yen for the damages caused by the threatening behavior.

As for the cost of obtaining the sender’s information, 1.08 million yen was acknowledged as part of the procedure related to the disclosure of sender’s information. However, since Article 3-1 is not recognized as a tort against the plaintiff, this amount was deducted. The court acknowledged 945,000 yen (1.08 million yen x 7/8) as the appropriate amount of damages for the cost of obtaining the sender’s information, which has a substantial causal relationship with the defendant’s tort.

Summary

In this case, although a search of the defendant’s home was conducted, it appears that the arrest was deferred due to the fact that this was a first offense and the identity of the defendant was clear.

It can be said that it is necessary for it to be commonly known that those who commit despicable acts of harm will certainly be pursued and punished.

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, overlooking information related to reputational damage and slander spread on the Internet can lead to serious harm. Our firm provides solutions for managing reputational damage and online crises. Details are provided in the article below.