Japan's National Diet Passes a Law Strengthening Penalties for Online Harassment

[Cinnamilk]

Japan Passes Bill to Make Online Insults Punishable by Jail Time - Kyodo News(EN)

Similar article with a little more detail(JP)

Any thoughts/opinions regarding this, either specific to Japan or on a more worldwide scale?

The first thing that came to me was an immense culture shock that not only a penalty for this sort of thing but that people want to also strengthen it. I get the sentiment but my American govt overreach spidey sense is tingling.

I feel that time would better be spent destigmatizing mental health care and providing resources so that CBT is covered by the national insurance instead of only prescription based methods.

I might be looking at this the wrong way but to me the potential rights violations seem scarier than fostering the things in the culture that could make people less afraid to get help and get tougher, even if it is an uphill battle.

I have zero intention (or spine) of insulting other people in Japanese, but I have noticed I'm a lot more snarky online in English because I can generally expect and temper the things I say to not utterly destroy a person to the point of offing themselves.

[KOUNTERPARTS]

After what happened with Hana Kimura, I can't say I'm surprised by these turn of events.

Appearance on Terrace House and other ventures

Kimura joined the reality television series Terrace House: Tokyo 2019–2020 in September 2019, appearing on the show until her death.[24] One episode filmed in early January 2020 showed Kimura involved in a verbal conflict with her housemate, Kai Edward Kobayashi, for damaging her wrestling attire. After the episode aired in March 2020, her actions drew criticism, name calling and racist abuse from social media users, sending her into depression.[25][21][26][27] The release of new Terrace House episodes was suspended as a result of Kimura's death,[28][6] and Fuji TV later cancelled the season.[29][30]

Before her death, Kimura was set to co-star with Ena Fujita in the music video for the musician's June 2020 single "Dead Stroke"[31] and Lalo the Don's "Til The Break of Don", recorded before the COVID-19 pandemic and uploaded on YouTube in May 20, 2021.[32]

Death

Early in the morning of May 23, 2020, Kimura posted self-harm images on Twitter and Instagram while sharing some of the hate comments she received.[40][41][42][43] She was reported dead later that day, at the age of 22.[44][45] Dave Meltzer claimed three days later that the cause of death was hydrogen sulfide ingestion.[46] By December 2020 the death was ruled a suicide.[7]

On December 15, 2020, the police announced that they had arrested a man in his mid-20s for cyberbullying.[47][48] The man, who resides in Osaka Prefecture, admitted to the allegations and was quoted by the police as saying he "couldn’t forgive Kimura’s attitude on the program."[49] On March 30, 2021, the Tokyo Prosecutors Office indicted the Osaka man for online abuse directed at Kimura, but was not obliged to face trial under the indictment, as is often the case for relatively minor offenses in Japan. He was issued an order of ¥9000 ($80 USD) fine, which prompted concerns that the punishment was too light.[50] Kyoko Kimura, the late wrestler’s mother, has filed a suit seeking more than $20,000 in damages from the man.[51]

On April 5, 2021, Tokyo Metropolitan Police charged a second man in his late 30s for online abuse he sent Kimura. Metropolitan Police Department said the second man, from Fukui Prefecture, admitted to the allegations during voluntary questioning, with investigative sources quoting him as saying, "Many hateful messages had been posted, and I followed suit. I’m sorry."[52] When asked why he did it, he said he was "simply joining in with what he saw others doing on her site."[53]

On January 22, 2021, Kyoko Kimura filed a lawsuit with the Tokyo District Court seeking damages of around 2.94 million yen ($27,000 USD) against a third man for causing emotional distress to her family. According to the lawsuit, the third man, from Nagano Prefecture, posted hateful messages about Kimura's death in May 2020.[54] On May 19, 2021, the Japanese Court Judge Momoko Ikehara ordered the third man was to pay ¥1.29 million yen ($12,000 USD).[55]

[Cinnamilk]

Like, I get that that harassment drove her to commit suicide, but from what I've seen in Japanese the example of insults given are kindergarten level. I can't really find anything about like how long this went on or like how many messages and it just seems like if you say like きもい like once that's enough. Like there's worse shit to say in Japanese.

Edit: it looks like it was over a span of weeks. At that point like wouldn't you just block the troll like immediately? How many accounts did he go through? At this level I do think something should be done but the lack of clarity just makes those alarm bells ring.

[Rozz]

Like, I get that that harassment drove her to commit suicide, but from what I've seen in Japanese the example of insults given are kindergarten level. I can't really find anything about like how long this went on or like how many messages and it just seems like if you say like きもい like once that's enough. Like there's worse shit to say in Japanese.

Edit: it looks like it was over a span of weeks. At that point like wouldn't you just block the troll like immediately? How many accounts did he go through? At this level I do think something should be done but the lack of clarity just makes those alarm bells ring.

It may be better to make legislation requiring social media hubs to have better/stronger stances in cases of severe harassment/threats, while also making a legal framework to support these extremes actually being dealt with. So that way in extreme examples, people have a way to actually defend themselves and it's less of a no-penalty game to ruin someone's mental health.

Social media is dangerous because it has very little regulation for things that aren't blatant offenses; and, it's harder for popular accounts to ignore harassment because people make new accounts, follow them to other websites, make rumors that can hurt their real-life job/associates, harass their family, post their nudes, make fake accounts of them to get them in trouble, swat them, doxx them, etc.

Now the Japanese government is really obtuse and says it'll act on an issue and only makes weird half-measures, but it still is a very real issue. I'd rather argue for ways to move it within the realm of a reality in which such rulings can be effective, rather than condemn the attempt entirely. But I'm not Japanese, so my opinion goes as far as my vote would in their country.

As for my stance outside of Japan, I'm still not against the basic concept. But I've always been that way. If you live in a society, you gotta give up a little for the safety of the majority. What you give up and to what extent can be debated, but it is the mantra of civilization and coexistence. They didn't say you couldn't be snarky or snide. They didn't say you couldn't make jokes or just say you dislike someone. But making it possible to penalize targeted hate campaigns with the intention of hurting someone is probably for the best in the long term. Debate on how that's defined, but don't shy away from the problem because you're afraid of what little it would cost you. (not you specifically, general you)

[Freighter]

Any thoughts/opinions regarding this, either specific to Japan or on a more worldwide scale?

It should be something that's implemented world wide, along with stricter defamation laws.

[Milchshake]

Until you realize how farcical the defamation laws are in Japan or Korea are to begin with.


I can;t even manage a sarcastic laugh..

[Lynarii]

It's pretty much only Americans who believe that they have a right to harass people to death online. No other nation that I'm aware of considers that to be acceptable behavior, or that it is a government overreach to take steps to protect people from it.

The question that most other countries wrestle with is not 'should we take steps to stop this', but 'how do we take steps to stop this that do NOT also harm legitimate speech'. And that's surprisingly hard to do. A reasonably competent observer can easily spot the difference between a campaign of harassment on a targeted victim and people telling their politician that they're unhappy with a position that was taken, but actually figuring out a way to put those differences into legal text is very challenging. I think the way that Japan is going about it, where they have a mandatory review set at the 3 year mark to look at the ways that the law gets used in actual practice is about as good as you can ask for.

[Cinnamilk]

@Freighter I don't see that flying in the US, not without better definitions and protections. People enjoy their constitutional right to call each other idiots on a whim.

@Lynarii The 3 year review makes sense, I just wish that up front there was some sort of differentiation in the law itself between a one-off two-bit comment and actual targeted harassment.

Still spooky that there's defamation laws that apply even if the stated fact is true.

@Rozz Yeah, I'd agree with shifting a lot of the burden to the platforms themselves makes sense. I don't really know jack enough about moderation to say how much it would cost to make sure swift IP bans would go out in these cases but from a gut feeling it seems worth it.

I can't vote here but I do live here for now, so even though I'm not the sort of person that would harass an idol or whatever for weeks on end or even make a one off comment that a streamer is an idiot, the law still applies to me and I like to know the rules of what I'm engaging with just because my natural response to vagueness is neurotic panic.

[Shadowferal]

I've never understood the inability to either leave a website, use an "ignore" function, complain to moderators, or simply turn off the pc.

[Freighter]

Still spooky that there's defamation laws that apply even if the stated fact is true.

Why? People don't need to know everything, even if it's true.

Someone cheated on their partner? Why does people need to know that? What does people gain from knowing this fact? All it does is make way for antagonism against the person. I can tell it that Americans don't generally favor this but it's for preventing harm to people over the things that don't really matter much, people don't need to be involved in someone's private life. The only reason to share this fact is to try to cause the person harm.

If something is of public interest, it's not defamation.

[Cinnamilk]

I've never understood the inability to either leave a website, use an "ignore" function, complain to moderators, or simply turn off the pc.

I mean, I kind of get that as a public figure if someone is doing targeted harassment on one SNS site they could do it on any other SNS site you go to.

I'm also baffled how these people were allowed to continue for so long.

Idol culture has always stood out as something kind of fanatical and gross to me. I like to watch a VTuber stream from time to time but a lot of the panic about getting outted or being in a relationship seems to have roots in the idol industry and it's management.

It's not the idols themselves but the fans and how their unrealistic expectations make a lot of the rules and restrictions imposed on the idols.

[Lynarii]

I've never understood the inability to either leave a website, use an "ignore" function, complain to moderators, or simply turn off the pc.

They can and do. But after a while one has to ask, is it a good thing to set up the rules so that it's the responsibility of the victims to hide from their abusers, rather than saying that it's not okay to abuse? And even when they DO hide, the worst abusers go after someone's family, friends, any way they can hurt their target indirectly if they can't do it directly.

[Cinnamilk]

Why? People don't need to know everything, even if it's true.

Someone cheated on their partner? Why does people need to know that? What does people gain from knowing this fact? All it does is make way for antagonism against the person. I can tell it that Americans don't generally favor this but it's for preventing harm to people over the things that don't really matter much, people don't need to be involved in someone's private life. The only reason to share this fact is to try to cause the person harm.

If something is of public interest, it's not defamation.

Because depending on who's suing you can greatly effect if your reporting is deemed as for the public good, whether it actually is or not.

As an example, the defendent in this case lost in excess of 40 million yen for true reporting. I'd say that the reporting does advance the public good because letting it go otherwise incentivizes match fixing and ruins the integrity of sumo as a sport of cultural significance. But the judge say nay so fuck your truth, let the grifters keep on grifting.

In the case of cheating on a partner or whatever, who gives a rat's ass. I'm fine with that being reported it not. But allowing a scandal to continue in the background after a false internal investigation just reeks of corruption.

[Shadowferal]

They can and do. But after a while one has to ask, is it a good thing to set up the rules so that it's the responsibility of the victims to hide from their abusers, rather than saying that it's not okay to abuse?

That's what moderators are for.

And even when they DO hide, the worst abusers go after someone's family, friends, any way they can hurt their target indirectly if they can't do it directly.

If a person is giving out his/her own personal info then that person has no business being on the internet to begin with. At the very least said person should be supervised.

[Azadina]

Why? People don't need to know everything, even if it's true.

Someone cheated on their partner? Why does people need to know that? What does people gain from knowing this fact? All it does is make way for antagonism against the person. I can tell it that Americans don't generally favor this but it's for preventing harm to people over the things that don't really matter much, people don't need to be involved in someone's private life. The only reason to share this fact is to try to cause the person harm.

If something is of public interest, it's not defamation.

What gain do people get from knowing someone is a cheater? Well, anyone looking to hook up with said person deserves to know. Said cheater already acted like a spineless scumbag, why should they also get to weasel out of their own choices, rather than admit and live with it.

[Cinnamilk]

What gain do people get from knowing someone is a cheater? Well, anyone looking to hook up with said person deserves to know. Said cheater already acted like a spineless scumbag, why should they also get to weasel out of their own choices, rather than admit and live with it.

On the other hand, someone sued Google because the autocomplete results for his name implied he had a criminal record, with sources arguing either way about it's truth or falsity.

Now, let's say that guy is trying to change jobs. A company is going to see those results and immediately disregard him for hire, whether he did that stuff or not.

It could be someone with a similar name. It could be outright false. And even if he did have some criminal record x amount of years in the past, should that really weigh into the rest of his life if reformed?

That's not really a question for me to answer. The culture has a different emphasis on honor, and I'm generally ambivalent to it as long as it's not being used as a cover for politicians and tycoons to be corrupt as they see fit without repercussion.

[Flarelaine]

I've never understood the inability to either leave a website, use an "ignore" function, complain to moderators, or simply turn off the pc.

Communicating with fans is part and parcel of performing, such as professional "wrestling". A performer giving up on or ignoring comments is practically resigning their career.

[Shadowferal]

Communicating with fans is part and parcel of performing, such as professional "wrestling". A performer giving up on or ignoring comments is practically resigning their career.

Certain entertainment industries such as WWE almost encourages negative comments. It's part of a package deal.
In other areas, we'll, if I had a degree of fame and fortune ignoring comments like "You're a big doody-head!!1" are likely...no strike that. I'd probably agree and add that I've days that I'm even worse.(I'ma bad example. There are times I like a good online fight. " Five of you against one of me? I just call that a day of practice. Bring it! )

But the comments that would get my serious attention are related to libel and slander.
All of which is at best tangentially related to online bully.
A parent should have a talk with little Timmy and Susie about bullies, predators, and security, and when to simply turn the pc off.

[Azadina]

On the other hand, someone sued Google because the autocomplete results for his name implied he had a criminal record, with sources arguing either way about it's truth or falsity.

Now, let's say that guy is trying to change jobs. A company is going to see those results and immediately disregard him for hire, whether he did that stuff or not.

It could be someone with a similar name. It could be outright false. And even if he did have some criminal record x amount of years in the past, should that really weigh into the rest of his life if reformed?

That's not really a question for me to answer. The culture has a different emphasis on honor, and I'm generally ambivalent to it as long as it's not being used as a cover for politicians and tycoons to be corrupt as they see fit without repercussion.

What can I say? That life isn't perfect and fair. That hypothetical guy, if it's his first time running into adversity that wasn't caused by himself, then he just graduated into adulthood.

[Nymrohd]

I've never understood the inability to either leave a website, use an "ignore" function, complain to moderators, or simply turn off the pc.

For Gen Z it is not at all a hyperbole to say that removing themselves from social media is equivalent to removing themselves from society. Their peers communicate almost entirely through these means and to avoid them is to exclude yourself from socialization. That is not a reasonable trade off.