Man sent to prosecutors for posting abusive comments online about mother of late ‘Terrace House’ star

There should be an online Moderator company that you can pay and have all your media comments go through them first before you receive them.

People can make extra cash doing the moderating…no what I mean?

A man in his 40s has been sent to prosecutors for posting malicious messages about the mother of Hana Kimura

I have no sympathy for the guy, but criminalizing offensive speech is a horrible idea. Just imagine the same logic applied on this board to all of our notorious Trump haters? The prosecutor would have a busy day.

@Vteth: Did not know that. Thought they were all paid. Now I know why…

Punishing speech that doesn’t result in harmful acts. 

Its not “speech” when all you are doing is hurling vile personal abuse directed at one person, which in fact DOES result in harm to that person (her own daughter was literally driven to suicide by the exact same thing for Christ’s sake).

Its particularly a problem when the person on the receiving end is not a public figure as in this case. You could make a more convincing argument that personal insults against a politician or other public figure should be a form of protected speech since they are often a way for the person making them to express their viewpoint. There is no similar reason to protect “speech” that amounts to nothing more than harassment of a grieving mother just because that harassment took the form of words spewing out of some idiot’s stupid keyboard.

9000 yen?? What a joke.

Freedom of speech doesn’t include hate speech, bullying and telling people to die.

People should be held accountable online to the same degree as they are in the physical world. Make examples of these people by giving a hefty punishment. Only the weakest people do cyber bullying, so they will quickly fall in line,

9000YEN Kyu-sen-en????? Someone died, bro!

Social media postings are getting out of hand! People post garbage and call it freedom of speech! There is no sense of dignity and consideration as far as social media is concerned!

Nibek32

9000 yen?? What a joke.

Freedom of speech doesn’t include hate speech, bullying and telling people to die.

What is "hate speech" and "bullying" is completely subjective. We should not have an Orwellian Ministry of Truth to decide that.

Personal death threats are of course unacceptable, online or offline.

Hana was clearly a fragile person. I watched her shyness and insecurities on that show. It is a sad outcome. Twitter people are so brave behind fake names and pics.

Is 9000yen even worthy of reporting and court costs? I paid more than that a few weeks ago driving 40kph in a 30kph zone in the middle of the countryside.

What is "hate speech" and "bullying" is completely subjective.

If that were the case the nations that have laws in place to address hate speech within the context of free speech would be unable to prosecute hate crimes. However, they do. Successfully. With the burden of proof. Any freedom that social order affords also carries the burden of responsibility and must not be confused with anarchy.

Being able to "prosecute" hate crimes does not mean hate speech isn't subjective, it just means the court lowered itself (or maybe it wasn't very principled to begin with) to play along, and the citizens who voted for that hate speech law are playing with fire.

Freedom of speech doesn’t include hate speech, bullying and telling people to die.

So what exactly is hate speech? Please tell us.

Punishing speech that doesn’t result in harmful acts. Yikes.

So should we wait until someone is harmed before issuing punishments? I think it would be better to prevent any harmful acts before they happen. ( I also know there's no easy solution.)

We should not have an Orwellian Ministry of Truth to decide that.

So who should decide?

Freedom of speech is different from Cyberbullying.

If you target an individual for months sometimes years, making multiple accounts and telling the person to die. That is Cyberbullying. Not freedom of speecg

So what exactly is hate speech? Please tell us.

Googleman to the rescue:

The Supreme Court has explained the meaning of the term in various cases that have come before the Court. For example, in R v Keegstra, decided in 1990, Chief Justice Dickson for the majority explained the meaning of "hatred" in the context of the Criminal Code:

Hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.[4]

In 2013, Justice Rothstein, speaking for the unanimous court, explained the meaning of "hatred" in similar terms, in relation to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code:

In my view, "detestation" and "vilification" aptly describe the harmful effect that the Code seeks to eliminate. Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims.[5]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

Ever notice how the only people against hate speech laws are far right extremists?

Both men were fined 9,000 yen.

Such a tiny fine. I would put it up by a factor of 10 at least, and preferably 50.

Strangerland

Ever notice how the only people against hate speech laws are far right extremists?

Err, no. I notice that the people who advocate speech control via "hate speech" laws are generally the crowd that would describe themselves as progressive or "liberal" and usually call everybody who disagrees "far right extremist". You really get into a definition game here.

I notice that the people who advocate speech control via "hate speech" laws are generally the crowd that would describe themselves as progressive or "liberal"

Ever notice that those who call hate speech laws "speech control" are far-right extremists? Maybe some people wonder if they have an agenda behind not wanting hate speech protections, but the rest of us know they do.

progressive or "liberal"

Yeah, I'm center left. "Liberal" is the entire left of the spectrum. So being not on the right, I most definitely am a "liberal" (using quotes because you did for some weird reason), one of the reasonable ones who condemns far-left extremism as well as far-right extremism.

Binary extremist thinkers think anyone not at their extreme is an extremist for the other side though. It's the whole American "you're with us or you're against us" mindset, whereby they cannot understand nuance, or comprehend that someone could reside in the middle.

Ever notice how the only people against hate speech laws are far right extremists?

I have. And it seems to be the same all over the world. Its always the far right.

Ever notice how the only people against hate speech laws are far right extremists?

Wow. Really? The far left often argues that if you are not “one of them” then you have no right to have an opinion on the issue. Any disagreement in opinion is labeled as hate speech. For example, a refusal to call a trans woman a woman or to use their preferred pronouns is labeled hate speech. People have even been sued for such a thing.

The far left often argues that if you are not “one of them” then you have no right to have an opinion on the issue

Far left extremists are as useless as far right extremists.

And to get to your other topic, I’ll address your question:

Wow. Really?

Yes, really.

@pacific saury

You really don’t know?

Hate speech:

abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Who decides if something is abusive or threatening?

Who decides if something is abusive or threatening?

The legal system of the country under which the law is being exercised of course. You do understand how laws work right?

Are they also prosecuting the offenders whose targets are not weak and just ignore these hate messages?

Are they also prosecuting the offenders whose targets are not weak and just ignore these hate messages?

Do they prosecute other crimes they don’t know about?

Twitter is the nest of all haters and hateful messages, the only way to stop this (if you do not want the censorship) is quite easy, ask for KYC (like any financial services) of social network members and display their full name and real picture only (no nickname), believe me, this will calm down the game quickly and put some "normality".

Are people going to be fined for bad reviews now?

Maybe, if they contain hate speech.

In addition, Twitter and alike are so hypocrites because they need that "violence" to exist, problem is that is not a virtual world where everything is allowed, those SNS are like putting a knife on a table in a room full of haters, put a paper on it reading "don't use it"...and leave the room, what could go wrong.

Twitter and alike are so hypocrites because they need that "violence" to exist

I don't get it, what's making them hypocritical?

"hate speech" is just a label people put on comments

No, that’s wrong. It’s got a legal definition.

We are all free to comment and voice our opinion in a respectful and constructive manner, BUT we are NOT free to insult and cause harm to others.

""malicious messages"" and that is the problem, MALLCIOUSE, this is NOT about freedom of speech, this is an attack by a thug hiding behind the keyboard.