Explaining the Privacy Rights of 'Semi-Public Figures' such as Business Managers, Doctors, and Professors

The term “public figure” refers to individuals such as members of the National Diet, heads of local governments, councilors, and other high-ranking public officials. Criticism based on facts against public figures is excluded from defamation, as it contributes to the public’s right to know.

On the other hand, even private individuals who have a certain social influence, such as business owners, doctors, and university professors, may meet the requirements of public interest in facts. These individuals are sometimes referred to as “semi-public figures” or “deemed public figures” in the sense that they are treated similarly to public figures.

We will explain how privacy infringements against semi-public figures are handled.

Semi-Public Figures and Privacy

For so-called “celebrities”, it is understood that part of their private lives may be considered a legitimate concern of society, and that they have relinquished a certain degree of privacy by choosing such a profession and becoming famous. Therefore, it is sometimes considered legal to disclose information related to the field in which they became famous.

For public and semi-public figures, even if the facts are related to their private lives, it has been considered legal as long as the content and method of expression are not inappropriate in light of the purpose when provided as material for judging their suitability and qualifications.

Semi-Public Figures and Privacy Rights Violations in Professional Conduct

The case in question involves defamation against a doctor. A patient filed a lawsuit over sexual harassment during the doctor’s examination. In response, the lawyer representing the patient distributed copies of the complaint to the Judicial Press Club at a press conference and reported on the lawsuit using real names. Although the patient lost the sexual harassment lawsuit (the doctor won), there was a case where the doctor claimed damages from the lawyer and the newspaper company for defamation and privacy violation. Let’s delve into the details of this case.

Course of the Lawsuit

The patient, who had been raised as a male after birth but began to exhibit female physical characteristics from adolescence and started living as a woman before reaching adulthood, consulted a doctor at the Saitama Medical University General Medical Center’s Department of Plastic Surgery. The doctor was a pioneer in the medical field for people with gender identity disorder.

The patient claimed that the doctor had committed serious sexual harassment during the examination and filed a lawsuit for damages based on tort.

In response to inquiries from various media outlets about this lawsuit, the lawyer representing the patient held a press conference to distribute copies of the complaint and announced the patient’s claims and the doctor’s name and address. This was reported in the newspaper.

In this sexual harassment lawsuit, the patient lost (the doctor won) because “the patient’s testimony was unnatural and the sexual harassment could not be recognized as true”. However, afterwards, the doctor sought damages from the newspaper company for defamation and privacy violation and filed a lawsuit. To state the conclusion first, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s (the doctor’s) claim.

Judgment of the Court

First, regarding defamation, the court stated,

“The press conference merely indicated the fact that a lawsuit had been filed and the cause of the claim, and only explained the facts to the judicial reporters. In the relationship with the judicial reporters who directly contacted it, it did not defame the honor of the doctor, who was the defendant in the previous case.”

Regarding the newspaper report, the court stated,

“Citizens who have come into contact with the fact that a doctor has been sued for sexual harassment and defamation during an examination may think that there may have been some act that the patient perceived as sexual harassment. Especially in modern times, the social common sense that sexual harassment during an examination is a disgraceful act is being formed. Therefore, the fact that the patient filed a lawsuit for the indicated sexual harassment and other reasons itself can be said to lower the doctor’s social evaluation and defame his honor to that extent.”

However, since the doctor is a professor at a medical university and a pioneer in the medical field for people with gender identity disorder, the court did not recognize defamation, stating that the purpose of the press conference and reporting was to serve the public interest.

Furthermore, the court stated,

“The issue is the professional conduct of a person in a highly specialized profession, such as the conduct during an examination at a university hospital by a professor of medicine. This is a matter related to the doctor’s social activities and statements to society, and cannot be considered a matter belonging to the individual’s private domain.”

And,

“The plaintiff’s name is a matter that identifies the actor… it is not a matter that should be protected as privacy.”

Tokyo High Court, August 31, 2006 Judgment

The court did not recognize a violation of privacy rights, stating,

When the professional conduct of a person in a specialized profession is in question, the content of the lawsuit and the address do not belong to the individual’s private domain and are not subject to privacy protection.

Invasion of Semi-Public Figure’s Privacy Rights through Posts

There was a case where a dentist claimed that his reputation was defamed and his privacy was violated by posts on “Bakusai.com”, and requested the disclosure of sender information from the transit provider. In this case, not only defamation but also privacy violation was recognized.

Course of the Lawsuit

In the thread titled “△△” in the “Kanto Edition” and “Takasaki City Chat” of “Bakusai.com”,

“Dr. X of ○○” is “having an affair in □□”

Such an article was posted.

In response to this, the plaintiff claimed,

There is no doubt that “Dr. X of ○○” refers to a “doctor” or “dentist” named “X” in “○○ City” adjacent to Takasaki City. And since there is no other doctor or dentist named “X” in ○○ City other than the plaintiff, it is clear that the “Dr. X” in this post refers to the plaintiff. The post implies that the plaintiff is having multiple affairs, giving the impression to the reader that the plaintiff is regularly engaging in adulterous acts, thereby lowering his social evaluation and clearly violating his privacy regarding his private life.

And requested the disclosure of sender information.

In response, the transit provider stated,

Given that the plaintiff holds a certain social position as the director of a dental clinic, it cannot be denied that there is a public interest and public purpose in the posts about his private life. Therefore, in this case, it cannot be denied that there may be circumstances that negate illegality (circumstances that deny illegality).

And did not acknowledge that “the right has been clearly violated”.

Judgment of the Court

The court recognized the invasion of privacy. The reasons are as follows,

The notation “Dr. X of ○○” in this post is understood to refer to the plaintiff, and since there actually exists a bar district called “□□ Village” in Takasaki City, the description of “having an affair in □□” in this post, according to the ordinary attention and reading of a general person, implies the fact that the plaintiff is often having an affair in □□ Village in Takasaki City, or that he is going to □□ Village with his affair partner. Therefore, it is clear that this post defames the plaintiff’s reputation and violates his privacy regarding his private life.

It was stated. In addition,

Even if the plaintiff is the director of a dental clinic and holds a certain social position, there is no relation whatsoever between the fact that he is having an affair and his skills as a dentist or treatment at the dental clinic, so it is difficult to acknowledge that there is a public interest in the facts stated in this post.

It cannot be acknowledged that there are reasonable reasons to believe that the content of this post is true and that it is true.

Tokyo District Court, March 20, 2015 (Heisei 27) Judgment

The court ordered the transit provider to disclose the sender’s information.

Even if the plaintiff is a semi-public figure, if the facts indicated by the post have no relation whatsoever to the skills as a dentist or treatment at the dental clinic, not only defamation but also violation of privacy rights can be recognized.

Summary: Consult Lawyers to Consider Privacy Rights of Semi-public figures

For semi-public figures, even if the matter pertains to their private life, there may be instances where it is not considered an infringement of privacy rights, provided that the content and method of expression are not inappropriate in light of their purpose.

Deciding whether an infringement of privacy rights is recognized can often be challenging, so please consult with an experienced attorney.