Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
national

Bill for swift removal of defamatory posts on social media enacted

22 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

22 Comments
Login to comment

If ordinary people can use it, so do politicians. Just another way for doing censorship.

3 ( +13 / -10 )

Tool to do just that are already in place and has been for many years!!!!

Anyone can REPORT any content and request it be swiftly evaluated and or deleted if it is judged to be harmful to one person or the general public.

So what is this Bill talking about??

8 ( +12 / -4 )

If ordinary people can use it, so do politicians. Just another way for doing censorship.

You hit the nail on the head! The law will likely be used by politicians to keep anything seemingly critical off social media — like this comment.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

This week there is another news that some businesses just don't like having their bad review and asking for removal.

https://japantoday.com/category/national/doctors-dentists-sue-google-for-keeping-reviews-they-say-are-unfair

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Foreign Internet laws do not apply to America

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

This can be slippery slope. What might be deemed offensive for some, might not be for others.

I've had quite a few posts on social media removed for very innocuous comments or jokes. Even for having a specific word written that their bots deem no longer politically correct. Some deletions didn't even make any sense at all.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

See, I was right!

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

The bill calls for operators to set up points of contact for accepting deletion requests and disclose criteria for removing posts, among other measures.

Even if it is a very legitimate criticism of a prominent political figure or business and their policies, presented with well vetted evidence and citation , let me guess that "off-topic" will be sufficient criteria for its removal.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

In a similar vein, Australia will enact laws that prevents wide spread misinformation on some social media platforms as a response to the recent Sydney murders and stabbing attack.

People get inflamed by what they read, and in the case of the stabbing of the Arch Bishop , they react in violent ways that further confound the problems Police face.

I am thinking of the Orson Wells radio broadcast.."The Martians have landed ", which spread panic in New York and elsewhere as perhaps an original fake news flag.

Free speech is probably a Utopian concept and the potential for damage , mischief and mayhem is always present.

Now, in defamation law in Australia, truth and public interest are defences for publications, so 1/take care to be sure of what you post and 2/dont defame people through malicious intent.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I think the only thing that can be removed automatically has to be clear illegal content. Misinformation can just be colorfully annotated with the correct information.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I expect that politicians will demand levels of oversight that break the viability of web 2.0 as a backhanded way of censoring the net. Or because they don't know how it works and are just happy to pander to activists for the PR.

Criminalising 'hurt feelings' online works really badly. An attempt in Scotland to make it easy to report posts that people do not like to the police has gone awry, as 'members of the public had “weaponised” the new law to pursue personal and political vendettas, and that messaging to the public urging them to report all possible instances of “hate”, potentially anonymously, had backfired'.

Hate crime complaints to Scottish police set to outnumber total for all other offences. https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-scotland-cannot-cope-deluge-085922476.html

They will have to start treating online posts more as pub chat rather than published broadcasts. Instead of a criminal defamation process, perhaps a 24 hour posting ban would be more appropriate. Something that online services already use. Otherwise half the planet will be hitting 21 with a criminal record for angry/drunk posts, the courts will have decade-long backlogs, and so many people will be banned from using the net, that digitalisation will have to be abandoned.

We need to evolve to the point where we all cheerfully accept that, just because someone says something online, it isn't necessarily true. Some people find that hard - an accusation that you were rude about something religious in some places can get you killed. That's not a tech problem. That's a social evolution problem. Only idiots accept everything they read online at face value, and it is uncivilised to attack someone because they disagree with you or offend you. It isn't tech that needs to be upgraded, but people that need to evolve a bit more. A thicker skin and an acceptance of a diversity of opinions.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yes... and of course those Corporations with the highest "donations" will be in line first to have any negative posts deleted. The regular Taro... he'll have to wait his turn.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

In China the CCP employees countless thousands to take down...instantly...any thing they do not like, that is why no knows the truth about is happening there.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If a Japanese person attempts to assault me, intimidate me, or falsely accuse me in public or calling the police. Then, I should have the right to post that interaction on the internet (a public platform).

This law is about politicians, Japanese companies, and Japanese celebrities not wanting the public to know the truth.

They realize that they cannot control the internet the way the Japanese news networks and press is controlled by companies and j-company buddies.

What is the difference between the J-governement and the CCP?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I guess they will try to remove the online media about the 3 foreigners suing the police and J-government for racial harassment and discrimination!

Also, all things about TEPCO, the failed Shinzo Abe, and the corrupt Aso.

Too many LDP politicians being charged with corruption for their liking!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

If this law was enacted years earlier, then we would not know about the crimes committed by the head of Johnny's, or the celebrities and TV companies that allowed it to happen!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

This law is about politicians, Japanese companies, and Japanese celebrities not wanting the public to know the truth.

No. It is not to force social media providers to take down anything. It is to force them to name someone who can be contacted, has to answer, and has to state the criteria to take down posts or not. Until now, social media providers could just ignore complaints.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Open-minded: If a Japanese person attempts to assault me, intimidate me, or falsely accuse me in public or calling the police. Then, I should have the right to post that interaction on the internet (a public platform).

I know someone that was recently scammed out of a significant amount of money and went to the police. The police said, that it was a matter between the individuals and they would not get involved. In addition to refusing to get involved, the police informed the individual that had been wronged, that if he/she posted about it online it would be defamation of character (even if true) and that the scammer could go after him/her. The police said they would have to investigate and follow the procedures for that type of case. Both individuals are foreigners in Japan legally

I agree that you should have the right to post such things on the internet. It’s the only way to prevent others from becoming victims of the same scams.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If ordinary people can use it, so do politicians. Just another way for doing censorship.

As mentioned in the article this is already possible, anybody with money or power will not have difficulty in having someone do the complicated proceedings for them, now this is easier for regular people.

Anyone can REPORT any content and request it be swiftly evaluated and or deleted if it is judged to be harmful to one person or the general public.

So what is this Bill talking about??

The article is short, but explains the benefits

The move toward revising the provider liability limitation law comes as many defamation victims who sought to have such posts removed before they could spread widely struggled to find a point of contact or found the deletion rules to be unclear.

This week there is another news that some businesses just don't like having their bad review and asking for removal.

Bad is not the problem, false is. The article do not say people can't leave bad (but valid) reviews.

This can be slippery slope. What might be deemed offensive for some, might not be for others.

This is already possible to do, so the bill do nothing to make the risks higher.

 you want to limit our freedom than you must change constitution first and say openly that we have NO RIGHT of freedom of speech anymore-you need to be exact and not "halfmenschen"...

There is no contraposition, that is just not understanding what the freedom of speech means.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about letting business owners delete defamatory reviews?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

^ I meant on Google.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If it is true, it needs to be protected speech, period.

If it is not true, then use liable laws to go after everyone involved and mandate that corporations support the removal within 48 hrs. Without a time limit for compliance, I fear this will be a do-nothing law.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites