Japan plans legal revision for quicker deletion of defamatory posts

Decisions regarding the potential deletion of content must take into consideration the need to ensure fairness and any risk to freedom of expression

Isn't this the actual purpose, to curtail expression. Japan global rank is lower and lower every year.

https://www.dw.com/en/why-japan-ranks-poorly-in-press-freedom/a-65549778

The government will submit the bill to revise the Provider Liability Limitation Act during an ordinary Diet session starting this month.

Let me predict that this will largely be applied heavily to posters online who are deemed to have 'interfered with a companys business operations ' or defamed a celebrity or politician.

While actual harassment will be glossed over and the victims will have little recourse.

the operators of social media platforms such as X, Instagram and YouTube to delete content that defames individuals or businesses

How does Japanese law actually define "defamation"?

Soon Japan will have a ‘Ministry of Truth’ to make sure the people know what is correct.

NHK just doesn’t pass muster.

Defamation = What the gov't doesn't like.

Japan stuck in the middle ages.

This board exists on defamation of anything Japanese. Has been that way for over 20 years. Maybe this law might knock some sense into gplusmedia.

""You may think videos can be deleted quickly and easily, but it's actually quite complex," said YouTube Japan representative Akiko Nakajo.

Decisions regarding the potential deletion of content must take into consideration the need to ensure fairness and any risk to freedom of expression, Nakajo said.""

AGREE, is is NOT as easy as many think, the number of posts / day these platforms manage is beyond anyone's imaginations, the risk to freedom of expression is a tough balance and requires many skills .

One way used by some platform is the threat to BLOCK the accounts of repeated offenders, it may work but then it also violate their rights.

It's anyone's call, so good luck.

clearly an anti-democratic regime.

Just a freedom of speech violation used for propaganda strategy.

"defamation" can not be defined but judged only under fair and competent trial.

sadly, social platforms will become the new justice system.

"You may think videos can be deleted quickly and easily, but it's actually quite complex," said YouTube Japan representative Akiko Nakajo.

That's complete crap. they delete vids all the time when there is a significant amount of nudity or if a movie is uploaded, yet live feeding videos and other animal torture vids remain fair game. Disgusting.

RoyToday  09:31 am JST

that is the point, there will be no more defamation cases.

the judgment under the law can be only made by the justice and not by social media themself.

it is an illegal substitution of judgment authority.

That being said, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence.

That is such a ridiculous falacy that it's hilarious people are still repeating it.

That being said, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence.

That is such a ridiculous falacy that it's hilarious people are still repeating it.

Where is the ‘falacy’?

Where is the ‘falacy’?

The fallacy is that it justifies that any reaction in response to someone's speech. Doesn't matter if the person is making an increidbly sound argument or is an absolute loon who's spouting absolute gibberish. If you dislike it, then anything you do to the person in response is completely justifiable because, "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. He should have known better what would happen."

The title of this article is about deleting defamatory posts.

There is a big difference between posting a video and posting a comment.

Comments can be far worse than the video.

Standards are decided by a society. Societies differ so standards differ. Some individuals within that society adhere to those standards. Some individuals don't.

Just because a person complains about a video doesn't mean the video is defamatory. The government should stay out of this as long as the content isn't criminal.

The fallacy is that it justifies that any reaction in response to someone's speech

That is not what fallacy means, even if your claim was true (which is not) that would not constitute a fallacy.

For example one of the expected consequences is that other people can express a negative opinion about the person because of that speech. What you would be arguing would then be that these consequences should not be justified and other people would not have the freedom of speech to express their disapproval.

Obviously that makes no sense.

It is kind of hard to understand the positon of some comentators in here.

This project of law (since it has yet to be discuss in the senate), is something similar to what many countries, specially in EU has already implemented or are in way to be implemented.

Basically the law is to regulate false infomration and toxic commentators that may cause real harm to people.

That the law could be prone to be abuse? yes that is a risk, but every law of every country is the same.

I think, at least in part, that many people concept of "Freedom". I think many have the idea "Freedom = no restrains, no limits" or pehaps they just enjoy caos like Musk and his musketeers.

Basically the law is to regulate false infomration and toxic commentators that may cause real harm to people.

That the law could be prone to be abuse? yes that is a risk, but every law of every country is the same.

No, not "every" country. The First Amendment of the U.S. Bill if Rights exists for the exact purposes of PREVENTING that type of system from ever existing.

For example one of the expected consequences is that other people can express a negative opinion about the person because of that speech.

Except that's almost never what people mean when they say, "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence". Whenever someone brings up that phrase, it's almost always an excuse for silencing/attacking/unpersoning someone because they're deemed a "Nazi" for no other reason than they upset you.

No, not "every" country. The First Amendment of the U.S. Bill if Rights exists for the exact purposes of PREVENTING that type of system from ever existing.

Dude, the US First Amendment it can be also be abused... just an example D.J Trump.

The fact that it is an "Amendment" and not an Article (or section) shows that the constitution by itself was flawed, and the cure (amendment) was a patch.

I am not saying that the first amendment is bad or wrong, I am saying it is a law redacted by humans and thus it can be abused or manipulated according to interpretatioin, as any other law in the world.

Except that's almost never what people mean when they say, "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence".

As long as it becomes and example where your position means restricting the freedom of speech that means it is still a valid argument that refutes your point. It is a consequence and you are arguing for this not to be allowed, thus refuting your own argument by doing it.

That being said, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence.

That’s just a sneaky Trojan Horse way of saying “you don’t have freedom of speech.”

The fact that it is an "Amendment" and not an Article (or section) shows that the constitution by itself was flawed, and the cure (amendment) was a patch.

The purpose of the Bill of Right is that it's a separate document above that of the Constitution. What Hell are you smoking?

I am saying it is a law redacted by humans

Except for the fact that the first BoR outlines rights endowed to man by his creator, NOT from a government. The BoR is an extension of the Declaration of Independence.

It is a consequence and you are arguing for this not to be allowed, thus refuting your own argument by doing it.

"We want to restrict freedom of speech by punching Nazis, you want to restrict freedom of speech by preventing us from doing so. Therefore you're being a hypocrite by preventing us from attacking people."

If you actually had an argument, you wouldn't have to resort to using such fallacies.

There is no "freedom of libel".

Yes, there is.

Any allegation that harms another person's reputation, whether it is true or not, is defamation.

Only in Japan. In the west in order to “defame” someone, the allegation must be false.

Do you feel adventurous enough to corroborate that with a source?

https://archive.ph/JFgHn

Japan's ruling party LDP politicians themselves have funded to anonymous accounts who repeat defamatory posts against opposition parties, but no LDP politicians take responsibility.