When Does a Short Response on an Anonymous Bulletin Board Become Defamation and Illegal?

A typical example of defamation is, for example, making false statements about a specific individual, such as having committed illegal acts in the past. To be more specific, defamation occurs when:

1. It is clear that the statement refers to a unique individual (or a single company),
2. Specific details about the individual, such as when and what kind of illegal act was committed, are clearly stated, and
3. The statement is false.

In other words, defamation does not occur when:

1. It is unclear who the statement refers to,
2. The statement seems to suggest that some kind of “wrongdoing” was committed, but it is unclear what exactly is being said.

This is true not only for defamation, but also for other forms of slander, such as invasion of privacy. If it is unclear who the statement refers to, there is no invasion of privacy.

However, what a post is saying, especially in the case of short responses (posts) on anonymous online bulletin boards, is not always clear and can be a “delicate” issue. In other words, in the case of a bulletin board post with, for example, 100 responses,

• Even if you read just one short response, it may not be clear who it is about or what it is saying, but
• Considering the context of the entire thread, it may be somewhat clear.

So, in actual court cases, when judging multiple posts on an anonymous online bulletin board collectively, what criteria are used and to what extent is the relationship between multiple posts (responses) comprehensively judged?

When Relevance is Explicitly Stated

If relevance is explicitly stated, subsequent posts will be judged in conjunction with previous posts.

Posts with ‘↑’

There have been cases where the sender’s information was requested from the transit provider on the grounds that an article posted on the anonymous bulletin board ‘2channel’ (Japanese 2channel) was an invasion of privacy.

In a thread titled ‘Hiroshima City a Vocational School’, a post was made that included the description ‘1st year, Ko○yama B divorced with a child, 31 years old’. Considering the title of this thread, it is recognized that the article is discussing a person named ‘Ko○yama B’ who is in the first year of the school in question, is 31 years old, has been divorced once, and has a child. The attributes of this person and the plaintiff, such as the school and grade they are attending, their age, whether they have been divorced and how many times, and whether they have a child, match. Furthermore, considering that the plaintiff is called ‘B’ by friends and others, the description of ‘Ko○yama B’ easily recalls the plaintiff’s name, and it can be identified that this person is the plaintiff.

The post following this article, marked with ‘↑’, points out that there is a ‘current sex worker’ working under the pseudonym ‘C’ at ‘b’, a so-called delivery health service in Hiroshima City, which includes the description ‘Hiroshima Deli Hel b shop C’. The court ruled that, from the perspective of a general viewer’s normal attention and reading, this post refers to the plaintiff pointed out in the previous post, and thus it can be interpreted as indicating the fact that the plaintiff is a sex worker. And then,

The fact that one is working at a sex shop, the name of the shop, and the pseudonym used there are matters that one would not want to disclose based on the sensitivity of the general public, and moreover, (…) it is recognized that the plaintiff has not informed the general public of these facts, so each of these articles is recognized as an invasion of the plaintiff’s privacy.
Tokyo District Court, December 4, 2015 (2015)

It was recognized that the plaintiff is preparing to make a claim for damages for defamation against the senders of this case, and it was recognized that the plaintiff has a legitimate reason to request the disclosure of the sender’s information from the senders of this case, and the transit provider was ordered to disclose the sender’s information.

Because the post was marked with ‘↑’, it was clearly recognized as following the previous article, which is a reasonable judgment.

https://monolith.law/reputation/defamation[ja]

Posts with Anchors

Again, there have been cases where the sender’s information was requested from the transit provider on the grounds that an article posted on ‘2channel’ (Japanese 2channel) was defamatory and an invasion of privacy.

Several posts were made about ‘〇〇-chan’, who is a fan of the professional baseball b team and is also friendly with members of the b team’s private support group. Post 1 stated that ‘the plaintiff is trying to make sexual contact with a woman who has newly joined the d support group’, post 2 stated that ‘the plaintiff is a virgin who has no sexual experience with women other than sex workers working at sex shops’, post 3 stated that ‘the plaintiff is an atopic face and a man in his 50s’, and post 4 stated that ‘he seems to be a virgin’.

The court ruled that the plaintiff is the only one with the surname ○○ among the b team’s support group members, and that ‘○○-chan’ can be recognized as referring to the plaintiff. Therefore, considering the thread name as well, it can be recognized that all the posts except post 4 are targeting the plaintiff. In addition, post 4 has an anchor marked as ‘>>639’, and it is clear that it is a response to post 3, which is number 639. Since post 3 is targeting the plaintiff, post 4 can also be recognized as targeting the plaintiff.

The court ultimately did not recognize the statement ‘he seems to be a virgin’ in post 4 as an invasion of privacy, but recognized post 1 as defamation, post 2 as an invasion of privacy and honor, and post 3 as an invasion of privacy and honor, and ordered the transit provider to disclose the sender’s information.

In newspaper articles, there are phrases like ‘= related to page 12’, and in books, there are phrases like ‘see page 147’, but readers understood the anchor in the same way as these cases.

https://monolith.law/reputation/hyperlinks-and-defamation[ja]

When Making an Overall Comprehensive Judgment

When the relevance is not explicitly stated, an overall comprehensive judgment is made.

Other Articles in the Thread

A case occurred where a plaintiff, who claimed his reputation was damaged due to posts on an electronic bulletin board established for community building in Nakano Ward, Tokyo, alleging that he, a member of the ward assembly, had paid for sexual services at a sex shop, demanded the disclosure of sender information from the intermediary provider.

Firstly, the court addressed the intermediary provider’s claim that the general reader could not identify that the plaintiff was the “C Councilor”, who is the “d party’s major secretary-general” in the article. Even if a general reader who is not a resident of Nakano Ward reads this bulletin board, it may not be immediately clear that the “C Councilor”, who is said to be the “d party’s major secretary-general”, refers to the plaintiff. However, since this bulletin board is established concerning Nakano Ward politics, it is understood that those who would view it have an interest in Nakano Ward politics. It is clear that the fact that the plaintiff is the secretary-general of the d party’s assembly group in Nakano Ward is known to a considerable number of unspecified individuals. Therefore, it is understood that it is easy for an ordinary reader of this bulletin board to identify that the “C Councilor” refers to the plaintiff.

Then, the court stated that an article that implies the fact that the plaintiff obtained a blank receipt for tax evasion purposes from a soapland in Matsuyama, assuming that the plaintiff went to the soapland, is clear that the “C Councilor” is the plaintiff when read in conjunction with other articles. Considering the content of the aforementioned article on the bulletin board and the nature of this bulletin board, it is easy for an ordinary viewer to know that the “C Councilor” is the plaintiff by looking at other articles in the thread.

The defendant, the provider, argued that the general viewer of the bulletin board does not necessarily read all the postings on the bulletin board. However, the court stated that the bulletin board is different from magazine hanging advertisements and newspaper advertisements that can be seen by those who do not want to see them.

Internet bulletin boards do not catch the eye of those who do not want to see them. Those who see this open it with the intention of reading it. Therefore, the issue is how it is understood by a person of ordinary understanding who opens the bulletin board with the intention of reading it and reads it in the usual way. Normally, those who open an Internet bulletin board with the intention of seeing it and read it with the intention of understanding the meaning of the text, and those who dare to read the text while understanding that it is a text that criticizes and condemns a specific person by anonymous notation, usually pick up and read the preceding and following texts in order to know who it is. Considering the nature of this bulletin board, which is viewed by an unspecified number of people interested in Nakano Ward politics, it is easy to imagine that those who are interested in who the “C Councilor” is would pick up and read other articles. If you browse through the postings on this bulletin board as listed in Appendix 3, it is clear that with the usual reader’s attention and reading method, it is easy to understand that the “C Councilor” refers to the plaintiff.
Tokyo District Court Judgment on October 27, 2008 (Gregorian calendar year)

As a result, the court acknowledged defamation and ruled that there was no reason to believe that it was true, let alone that it was true, and that there were no reasons to deny illegality, and ordered the intermediary provider to disclose the sender’s information.

Multiple Threads

There have been cases where individuals have sought the disclosure of sender information from Internet Service Providers (ISPs) due to posts made on multiple threads within a forum category that infringed upon their honor and privacy.

The plaintiff in this case created a thread within the forum category with the aim of investigating the reality of animal abuse and attracting those who are inclined towards animal cruelty. The plaintiff posted an article inviting participants to a gathering (offline meeting) planned with the purpose of capturing and abusing stray cats and other animals. Subsequently, individuals who recognized the plaintiff’s intentions posted articles criticizing or defaming the plaintiff on the plaintiff’s thread or other threads within the forum category. These posters began referring to the plaintiff as “B2” or “B3”.

Later, in multiple threads discussing animal abuse within the forum category, articles were posted that revealed the plaintiff’s real name as “B2”, displayed the plaintiff’s face as “B3”, identified the plaintiff’s residential area, and referred to the plaintiff as an “old woman soliciting sex from an unspecified number of people”.

The plaintiff sought the disclosure of the sender’s information, arguing that these posts significantly infringed upon their honor and exceeded the socially acceptable limits of insult. The defendant argued that “general viewers cannot infer that the plaintiff is the subject of the articles. Moreover, it is not guaranteed that viewers of the articles will read posts on threads other than the one in question within the forum category. Therefore, the plaintiff’s honor and privacy are not infringed upon by the articles.” However, the court held that each thread discusses animal abuse, and it is reasonable to assume that general viewers of the thread would also view other threads within the category. If such viewers read the articles, they could understand that the articles target the plaintiff. The court stated:

“The content of the articles suggests that the plaintiff is a woman who solicits sexual intercourse from an unspecified number of men, or who actually engages in sexual intercourse with an unspecified number of men. The existence or non-existence of relationships involving sexual intercourse generally pertains to the private sphere of an individual, which should be considered as privacy. (…) It can be inferred that viewers of the articles, who have read posts on multiple threads within the forum category including the thread in question, are aware of the plaintiff’s name, appearance (face photo), and residential area. Given these facts and circumstances, it cannot be denied that the facts stated in the articles could be perceived by the viewers as plausible facts about the plaintiff’s private life.
Tokyo District Court, November 11, 2014 (2014) Judgment

As it is clear that the articles in question harm the plaintiff’s personal rights, the court found merit in the plaintiff’s claim and ordered the ISP to disclose the sender’s information.

Articles that can be described as malicious gossip about the plaintiff, written with a certain degree of malice, cannot be said to have public interest, and it cannot be assumed that the sender’s purpose is solely to serve the public interest.

Summary

In this way, when determining whether short responses posted on anonymous online bulletin boards constitute defamation or not, it is not only when the relevance is explicitly indicated by “↑” or anchors, but also when it is not explicitly indicated, there may be cases where the context can be interpreted from the relationship with other posts in the same thread, and sometimes from posts in other threads.

It is a difficult issue to determine in which cases the relationship is recognized and in which cases it is not. Please consult with an experienced attorney.