Can Articles Be Removed from Websites Publishing Arrest Information? No Mercy for Criminals?

There are websites on the internet that seem to exist for the sole purpose of copying arrest reports from newspapers and other sources and keeping them online. While this may be seen as an act of ‘justice’ in some sense, it is understandable that one would want any articles about their own arrest, especially those that are false accusations or have resulted in non-prosecution, to be removed as soon as possible.

Our firm has had an interesting successful judgment (technically a provisional disposition, which we will explain later) regarding the removal of arrest report information from such sites. We would like to introduce this in this article.

Websites Featuring Arrest Articles

There are blogs on the internet that focus on publishing arrest articles. For example, these blogs may focus on:

• Crimes committed by individuals in specific professions, such as public servants
• Specific types of crimes, such as sexual offenses or fraud

These blogs operate with the aim of continuously disclosing information to the general public about these topics.

In this case, the website in question was posting messages such as “We will never forgive these criminals” about specific types of crimes. Even in cases where charges were not filed due to insufficient suspicion, the site declared that it would not comply with deletion requests for the sake of “sounding an alarm to society”.

If negotiations outside of court fail to remove pages from such sites, or if there is little chance of removal through out-of-court negotiations, court procedures will be used. However, the procedure used is not a “trial”, but a “provisional disposition”. A provisional disposition can be described as a “quick trial”. While a trial requires a period of 4-12 months, a provisional disposition only requires an average of 1-2 months. This allows for the rapid removal of pages.

https://monolith.law/reputation/slander-delete-law[ja]

Publication of Information on Arrest Information Sites Constitutes Intolerable Disadvantage

In the decision of this provisional disposition, the judge stated about the creditor:

“Although the fact of being arrested is true, the creditor was not prosecuted due to insufficient suspicion, and as recognized in the criminal case judgment of another person who was arrested at the same time, the creditor was not involved in the crime.”

Based on this, the judge determined that there is no social significance in continuing to publicize the fact of the arrest at present, as follows:

“The creditor, regarding the suspected fact in question, not only was not prosecuted due to insufficient suspicion, but was also recognized as an unknowing person in the criminal judgment of ●●, who was considered a co-offender, regarding the public prosecution fact of the same purport as the suspected fact in question. Therefore, it cannot be recognized that the creditor committed the suspected fact in question in the first place. Generally, the mere fact of being arrested is widely thought to have committed the suspected fact related to the arrest, and it is a clear fact that the fact of being arrested itself lowers the social evaluation of the arrestee.”

Reiwa 2nd year (2020) No. 123 Article Deletion Provisional Disposition Application Case

In this way, this decision made a somewhat “unusual” judgment that writing the fact of being arrested gives the impression that “the person committed a criminal act”. Basically, courts often make the following judgments:

1. If the person was merely arrested, it does not mean that the person committed a crime.
2. It is doubtful whether the information is socially disadvantageous to the person in the first place.
3. Above all, the fact that “the person was arrested” is true, because it is “true”.

Because there are many cases where such judgments are made.

https://monolith.law/reputation/delete-false-positive-arrest[ja]

However, as pointed out in the same article,

Even if it turns out to be a false arrest, the fact that the arrest record remains on the Internet is clearly disadvantageous for both corporate managers and salaried workers, and the reason is that the reader interprets it as “the person committed a crime”. In this sense, this is exactly a “digital tattoo” problem.

It should be said.

The Problem Lies in the Implication that “The Individual Committed a Crime”

The basis of this decision is the evaluation that the public disclosure of the fact that “a certain individual was arrested” gives the impression that “the individual committed a crime”. This is considered in light of the message part of the site in question, which continues to post information even if the individual is not prosecuted.

“The blog in question, at the beginning (omitted), states that just because a suspect is not prosecuted does not mean they did not commit the suspected act. Therefore, while the fact of the arrest itself is true, the article in question, which only points out this fact, first and foremost, makes the general public recognize a fact that cannot be acknowledged as true, that the debtor committed a crime, and the disadvantage to the debtor is significant.”

Reiwa 2nd year (2020) No. 123 Post Deletion Provisional Disposition Application Case

It can be said that this judgment is reasonable.

Removing Arrest Articles is Not Easy

Framework for Deciding on the Removal of Arrest Articles

As we have explained in other articles on our site, removing arrest articles is not always easy. The legal basis for requesting the removal of arrest articles is primarily the right to privacy, or what is commonly referred to as the “interest of not having one’s criminal record etc. arbitrarily publicized”. However, there may be historical or social significance in publicizing the arrest information itself. Therefore, it is necessary to compare and weigh:

• The legal interest of not having arrest information publicized
• The reasons for publicizing arrest information

According to the Supreme Court’s view, it is only illegal if the former outweighs the latter.

Factors to Consider in Comparative Weighing

The factors to consider when examining whether there is an illegal infringement, i.e., when performing the above comparative weighing, are:

• Matters related to the attributes of the subject
• Matters related to the content of the incident in question
• Matters related to the purpose and significance of publicizing

If we break down these factors further, we often see cases where the following are considered:

• Whether or not the person was indicted
• The period of time since the crime was committed
• Whether or not efforts have been made towards rehabilitation
• The necessity of deletion

Judgment in the Case of Sites Posting Arrest Information

In relation to sites that proclaim messages such as “there is social significance in the publication of arrest articles”,

• In relation to “matters concerning the purpose and significance of publicizing”, if arrest information is posted on such a site, the impression that “a crime was committed” is strengthened, and the significance of publicizing is weak
• In relation to “whether or not the person was indicted” and “the necessity of deletion”, if arrest information is posted on such a site, the impression that “a crime was committed” is strengthened, and it is important to focus on the fact of non-prosecution, and the necessity of deletion is high

It can be said.

Summary

Even if a site is operated based on some form of ‘justice’, if the content of the site can be deemed ‘illegal’, it is ‘possible’ to remove arrest articles.

In making this determination of illegality, for instance, as in this case, the site’s view that ‘just because a suspect has not been prosecuted does not mean they did not commit the suspected act’ can sometimes be a factor leading to a judgment of illegality.

As mentioned earlier, removing arrest articles is never ‘easy’, but if the content of the site is causing negative effects on social life, it is recommended to consult with a law firm that has experience and expertise in such article removal.