When Does Writing in Initials or Censored Words Become an Infringement of Rights?

When you want to claim that your rights to honor or privacy have been violated, the first issue to consider is whether the violation was truly targeted at you. This is referred to as “identifiability,” and it is a prerequisite for establishing defamation or privacy infringement that the victim can be identified.

Even if there is a post that defames your honor, if third parties cannot identify who the target is, it is unlikely that the person’s social reputation will be diminished. If the person themselves cannot determine whether the post is about them, they cannot be certain that they have been insulted by the post. The same applies to privacy violations; if it is not clear who the information is about, it cannot be said that their private life has been made public.

On anonymous online bulletin boards and social networking sites, there are often cases where defamation is carried out by hiding part of a name or other identifying information with initials or asterisks. This article will explain how far such posts are allowed and from what point a violation of rights can be recognized.

https://monolith.law/reputation/defamation-privacy-infringement-identifiability[ja]

Court’s Stance

Firstly, regarding anonymous articles on the internet such as blogs, whether defamation is established or not is treated in the same way as publications where anonymous articles are posted.

If the article is an anonymous one, it is necessary that the general reader, who is an unspecified majority, can recognize that it is about the person in question, even if it is anonymous, by comprehensively considering the attributes of the person recognized from the contents of the article.

Then, even if the real name is not mentioned, there is a possibility that the subject can be identified by people who have certain knowledge or information about the attributes of the subject from the contents of the article, and if there is a possibility that it can spread to an unspecified number of third parties, it is considered sufficient for the identification of the subject in defamation.

Also, on blogs on the internet, there is a personalityistic that various information is additionally written by other people after the problematic description, so it is also considered that at least whether the subject can be identified or not should be judged based on the time of posting the article, the time of writing, etc., when the tort was committed.

For Employees of Companies with Multiple Branches

There was a case where two individuals, X1 and X2, claimed damages against the defendant, alleging that posts 1 and 2 on “5channel” defamed X1’s reputation, and post 3 defamed X2’s reputation, infringing upon their honor and dignity.

Case Background

The plaintiff X1 is a female employee of the sales department at a Corporation’s Tachikawa branch, and X2 is a male who holds the position of Rental Department Manager at the same corporation. In a thread titled “Let’s Talk About the ○○ Group in Akishima,” it was insinuated that they were in an adulterous relationship.

“A from the head office’s F department (Real Estate Department) and KO from Tachikawa’s E department (Sales Department) are in a clear physical relationship. A young man seduced by an older woman.”

This post suggested that they were in an adulterous relationship.

Court’s Decision

The ○○ Group consists of multiple business locations including Corporation a, and the only department that starts with the letter “E” is the sales department of Corporation a. Similarly, the only department that starts with the letter “F” is the real estate department of Corporation a. The person from the “F department” is identified by the derogatory term for women, “Baba,” and from this description, it can be recognized that “A from the head office’s F department” refers to a female employee working in the ○○ Group’s real estate department.

At the time, the ○○ Group had a total of 191 employees, and the sales department of Corporation a, including advisors, had 9 members. Among them, only two people, including plaintiff X1, had initials (including both surname and full name) starting with “K,” and there was no one else with the initials “KO” other than the plaintiff. Corporation a had its head office in Akishima City, Tokyo, and a Tachikawa branch in Tachikawa City, Tokyo.

In the article, it is mentioned that the target person “KO” holds the position of Rental Department Manager. Among the ○○ Group, only plaintiff X2 held this position, and it was understandable to the general reader that the person referred to in this article was plaintiff X2.

Based on these facts, the court determined that X1 and X2 could be identified, and

acknowledged defamation of X1’s reputation, defamation of X2’s reputation, and infringement of their honor and dignity, ordering the defendant to pay a total of 340,000 yen: 110,000 yen to X1 (100,000 yen for consolation money and 10,000 yen for attorney fees), and 230,000 yen to X2 (100,000 yen for consolation money, 20,000 yen for attorney fees, and 110,000 yen for disclosure of sender information).Tokyo District Court, October 30, 2018 (Heisei 30) Judgment

In another article on our site, we explained about internet slang. This is a case where even if the posts are written in initials or coded words, the plaintiffs can be identified by people within or around the company group.

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

The process of identifying the company name and the names of the employees is generally like this, and it follows the standard of a general reader who can easily infer this without any special knowledge or ability. In this case, the general reader refers to people within or around the ○○ Group.

Although the consolation money may seem low compared to other defamation cases, it was comprehensively considered that people outside the ○○ Group could not easily understand that the posts referred to plaintiff X1, the possibility of propagation was limited, the number of posts was only two, the manner of description did not definitively state that plaintiff X1 was in an adulterous relationship, and there was only one post about X2.

Case of Company Directors in a Local Town

There have been instances where plaintiffs have sought disclosure of sender information from an intermediary provider in order to exercise their right to claim damages against those who posted anonymous posts on internet blogs, alleging that their reputations were defamed and their feelings of honor were violated.

Case Background

The plaintiff X1 is the managing director of a transportation corporation that operates freight vehicles, and the plaintiff X2 is the child of the plaintiff X1 and the executive director of the same company. An anonymous member created a blog titled “〇〇” on the company’s goo blog, and under the title, it was written:

“We are forming a union to fight against your company, which is said to be as dictatorial as North Korea by people in the same industry! The union members are updating it in turns!”

In this context, regarding plaintiff X1,

When union member S reported an accident, he was called a liar and even when he told the truth, he was not believed. He lost the will to speak and fell silent. Then, the managing director told him to get in the car, and when he got in without knowing where he was being taken, they arrived at a hospital. He was told that this child is crazy and had his head CT scanned while he was still confused.

In response to this article,

Good evening! I was surprised about the CT scan, and SEN’s behavior is as if there is something wrong with his brain… It’s really scary. T is often called a brute, but it’s not an exaggeration, it’s true… (omitted)

Comment 1

And following the post, regarding plaintiff X2,

What does it mean to be a representative director’s proxy? I don’t understand. Do you have Asperger’s syndrome? You should get checked at a hospital once.

Comment 2

Comments 1 and 2 of this content were made. In response to these, the plaintiffs requested the disclosure of sender information from the intermediary provider for the purpose of claiming damages based on tort, on the grounds of defamation or violation of feelings of honor, etc.

Court Decision

First, the court stated regarding the identifiability,

It is written in other comments of this blog, “O Transport”, “O River U”, and “Sit-in at Shiga Sales Office”, “Shiga Prefecture △○ Town is a small town”, etc. From the fact that there is only one town in Shiga Prefecture with △, the company in question can be identified as “Otogawa Transport”, which has a sales office in Shiga Prefecture △○ Town and is a transportation company using trailers.

And,

It is clear that the notation “SEN” in the comment means “Managing Director”, and therefore, since the only managing director of “Otogawa Transport” is plaintiff X1, those who have certain knowledge and information about “Otogawa Transport” can identify that “SEN” in Comment 1 means plaintiff X1, and that “You’re just a bonbon, you can’t do anything without your parents’ power,” said to the “Representative Director’s Proxy”, can also be identified as meaning plaintiff X2.

It stated. On top of that,

Regarding the infringement of rights against plaintiff X1, the content of the comment that evaluates his behavior as “as if there is something wrong with his brain” or “brute” and that these expressions “fit without exaggeration” gives the impression to the viewer that plaintiff X1 is a person who deserves such evaluation, so Comment 1 defames X1’s reputation.

It stated. Also, regarding the infringement of rights against plaintiff X1,

The comment that plaintiff X2 might have Asperger’s syndrome gives the impression to the viewer that plaintiff X2 is a person who deserves such evaluation, but in today’s Japanese society, understanding of developmental disorders including Asperger’s syndrome is not necessarily sufficient, and there is still social prejudice, so Comment 2, which suggests such a developmental disorder, defames the reputation of plaintiff X2.

It stated. Then, without judging the point of infringement of feelings of honor for each, it ruled that they infringe the rights of the plaintiffs, and ordered the intermediary provider to disclose the sender information related to Comment 1 for plaintiff X1 and Comment 2 for plaintiff X2. (Tokyo District Court, October 18, 2013 (2013))

Although it may not be a very large company as it is a transportation company in a small town in the countryside, it was fully possible to identify it by the comments.

https://monolith.law/reputation/legal-action-slandering[ja]

Summary

It is incorrect to assume that using initials or pseudonyms in your posts will prevent you from infringing on rights.

If people who read the article cannot infer the company name or personal names, then no one will add new articles or comments. If you can infer that it’s about that person from that company, you should assume that others can also infer and identify the same.