Portal field news

Portal field news

in ,

🌐 | Yoshihiro Togashi started Twitter, and there were a lot of fake accounts. I asked Shueisha which one was "genuine".

Photo from Yoshihiro Togashi's Twitter account (@ Un4v5s8bgsVk9Xp)

Yoshihiro Togashi started Twitter, and there were a lot of fake accounts. I asked Shueisha which one was "genuine".

If you write the contents roughly
If you create a fake account impersonating another person, it is not immediately "illegal", but if you make a mistake, you will have a copyright problem, and if you post something that lowers your social reputation, you will have a defamation problem. Be careful as it can occur.

Manga artist Yoshihiro Togashi opened a Twitter account (@ Un5v24s4bgsVk5Xp) on May 8th ... → Continue reading

 Lawyer dot com news

Wikipedia related words

If there is no explanation, there is no corresponding item on Wikipedia.


Libel(Defamation,(British: defamation) IsfactOf othershonorActs that hurt.Restitution for DamagesJustify responsibility, etc.TortOr as a crimeCriminal penaltyCan be the target of.The statutory sentence is imprisonment or imprisonment for up to 3 years or a fine of up to 50 yen. "honorAbandonedAlso written as "loss"[Note 1].Public interestAndPublic interestPurposeIf, the content is真 実OrSituations and reasons that are unavoidable even if you believe it to be trueIn other words, "(truth)[1]If there is, there is no malicious intent, and the illegality isBlockingTo be doneException rulesIs provided[2][3][4]..According to Article 230 of the Criminal Code, defamation of the dead will not be punished unless it is done by revealing false facts.[4].

If the facts were not revealedInsultbecome.For defamationCriminal defamationCivil defamationThere is[5].

Concept of honor

person's"honorIs an ambiguous concept.

Internal honor
The true value of a person who exists independently and objectively apart from the evaluation given by himself or others.[6][7]
External honor (social honor / factual honor)
An evaluation of a person's reputation or reputation given by society.[6][7]
Honor feeling (subjective honor)
Refers to the sense of value and feelings that one has toward oneself[6][7]

Of these, the internal honor is the true value of the person objectively, not of the nature of being infringed by others, and not a matter of legal protection.[6].. It is external honor and feelings of honor that matter how legal protection should be.

Criminal law defamation charges make external honor a protective benefit[6].. In addition, "honor", which is protected as defamation in civil terms, is also an external honor.[8].. Infringement of honorary feelings is a problem for honorary feelings (#Infringement of honorSee).

Criminal defamation and exceptions


In France, instead of the Criminal Code, Article 1881 and below of the Freedom of the Press Act, published on July 7, 29, stipulate punishment for defaming or insulting individuals or groups.[9]..Until the Free Publication Act was enacted in France, crimes against honor were stipulated in the Criminal Code, and Article 1810 of the 367 Criminal Code stated that "in public places or meetings, or in public certificates, or posted, sold, published. In printed or unprinted documents, attacking an individual for a felony, misdemeanor prosecution, or any fact that would lead to public contempt or hatred, if present, is a misdemeanor of defamation. " Was being[9].

May 1819, 5 The first sentence of Article 17 of the Publishing Law states that "all claims or criticisms that damage the honor or fame of a person or group are defamation," and a mechanism to punish regardless of the truth of the fact was adopted.[9].

The 1819 Freedom of the Press Act was amended by the French Freedom of the Press Act on July 1881, 7, and the first sentence of Article 29 of the Freedom of the Press Act on July 1881, 7 states that "a fact is attributed to a person or group, and that person or group. In the case of infringement of honor or fame, presenting the fact or blaming the fact is all defamation. "[9]..The components of defamation in France are the presentation of facts or the criticism of the facts, the infringement of honor and fame, the person against a specific victim, the publicity, and others. Maliciousness is also a requirement by judicial precedent[9]..In addition, as a requirement for exemption from defamation charges, the 1819 Publishing Law stipulates a defense of truth in the case of facts concerning civil servants and public organizations, but the 1881 Freedom of the Press Law stipulates the scope of proof of fact about the defense of truth. Is being expanded[9].


In GermanyCriminal lawArticle 185 and below stipulate defamation charges.[9].


In Japan, it is stipulated in Article 230 and below of the Penal Code.

Under the criminal law, defamation chargesInsultThere is a dual theory that defamation crimes protect external honors and insult crimes protect subjective honors, but there is an external honor theory that both protect external honors. It is a popular theory[6].. The conventional wisdom is divided by the disclosure of specific facts, and if the specific facts are revealed, the success or failure of the defamation crime becomes a problem, and if not, the success or failure of the insulting crime becomes a problem.

Exception rules

The information is fact,There is a public interest in disseminating information,That information should be publicly disclosed,this3 When the conditions are metEven if he feels that he is slanderous, he cannot be defamed.Also, three years after the outbreakPrescriptionTherefore, if you do not file a criminal complaint within half a year after learning about the slanderous person, you will not be able to prosecute.[10].

Civil defamation


Civil lawIn countries, defamation is considered to constitute tort. AlsoCommon law OfLegal systemIn, defamation isTortIt has been.United States federal courtAccording to the report, defamation is the act of defaming another person's reputation by disclosing false fame.[11].

Defamation as a tort is an act that reduces the objective evaluation (social evaluation) that a person receives from society regarding character, deeds, fame, credit, and other personal values.[12].

Comparison of Japanese criminal defamation and civil defamation
Criminal defamationCivil defamation
Facts revealedDefamation charges are established only when the social evaluation is lowered by revealing the facts (case law / common theory)[13][14]Illegal acts due to defamation are established if the social evaluation declines not only when the facts are revealed but also when opinions or comments are made.[13][14]
Opinion or commentaryAn insulting crime is established when the social evaluation is lowered by a method other than revealing the facts (case law / common theory).[13][15]
Infringement of honorIf there is no decline in social evaluation, neither defamation nor insult will be established.[15](In case law and common wisdom, external honor is a protection law benefit for both defamation and insult.[13]"Honor" protected as civil defamation is an external honor[8].. Therefore, it is not defamation. However, tort may be established as an infringement of honor.[15].
Intentional / negligentDefamation (or insult) is established only when it is intentional (intentional offense)[15]Tort is established even if defamation due to negligence[14]
OpennessClear and openness is a constituent requirement[14]Defamation is not a requirement, but defamation is an act that lowers social reputation, and it is necessary that the speech be transmitted to others to some extent, and it does not make a decisive difference between criminal and civil. Absent[16][17].. Many court cases and practices are said to be based on the theory of openness.[18] .

Defamation object


Since corporations are also evaluated as social beings, defamation can be established for corporations as well.[19][12].

in Japan"Sankei Shimbun Opinion Advertising CaseAccording to the Supreme Court's decision, "If honor is infringed by acts of expression such as speech or publication, protection of the honor of an individual as a personality right (Article 13 of the Constitution)"Freedom of expression(Article 21 of the same), and it will be necessary to make adjustments. In this regard, if the victim is an individualCorporationOr, it is considered that no particular difference should be made depending on the case of a non-profit organization or foundation (omitted). "[20].. However, according to legal scholars, corporations and organizations whose credit is a problem "because they are under appropriate social interest and are in a position to be constantly exposed to social evaluation and criticism. The scope of honor protection will be more limited than that of private individuals. "[21].

Of EnglandCommon lawIn addition to individuals, corporations such as companies can also file defamation complaints.[22].

Russia25% of the plaintiffs in the trials filed to protect their honor, dignity and business fame were private companies and 22% were public and local public bodies.[23].


The question is whether defamation of the dead will be established.

There is defamation to the dead in South Korea, and if you make a defamation statement, you may be sued by a person concerned such as a direct descendant, and defamation will be recognized even in a civil court.[24].

In Japan, defamation of the bereaved family is established when the facts that lower the social evaluation of the dead are such that the social evaluation of the bereaved family is also lowered.[25][26].. In addition, if the defamation of the dead is limited to the defamation of the bereaved family, it cannot be considered as the defamation of the bereaved family.[27][28][29].

In addition, since Article 230, Paragraph 2 of the Japanese Penal Code states that "a person who has defamed the dead will not be punished unless he / she reveals a false fact", the defamation of the dead under the Civil Code. But it becomes a problem. First, it states that the judicial precedent must be a false fact in the case of infringement of "respect for the deceased".[30].. However, even if it is true, the bereaved feelings of wanting the deceased to be left alone should be protected, so as with general defamation, defamation only when there is publicity and charitable purposes. There is an objection that it should be considered that[31].. On the other hand, if the fact-finding that lowers the social evaluation of the dead is composed as defamation of the bereaved family, even the truth-finding is defamation and is exempted only if it has public nature and charitable purposes. Is believed to be[32].

Facts revealed

Fictitious name protection

The protection of false names is an issue regarding the success or failure of defamation.

In the case of Japanese law, it protects the evaluation that society actually gives to the person.[33]The success or failure of defamation depends only on the presence or absence of a decline in social evaluation, and the truth of the fact does not matter.[34].. However, certain reasons for exemption are required to guarantee freedom of public speech.[35].

Disclosure of matters unrelated to personality value

Matters such as being a mentally ill person are essentially unrelated to personal value, but prejudice and discrimination still exist in society, and when the disclosure of these facts reduces social reputation. Is a defamation, the traditional view is[34].. These issues are not defamationPrivacy invasionThere is also a view that gives legal protection as a problem of[34].

Target identifiability

Defamation must be done to a specific person in order to be defamation, and defamation cannot be established even if the group is simply vaguely targeted like "Tokyo people" and "Kansai people".[36].. This is the same as in the case of criminal defamation.

Defamation may be established if the person is not mentioned directly[37].

  • References to one person may be found to be defamation to another[38].
    • Defamation of the president of a company may also be defamation of the company.[39].
  • References to objects that are closely related to the subject may be found to be defamation[37].
    • It is believed that the social reputation of authors and restaurant owners does not decline immediately if it remains a subjective assessment, such as a work of art or a restaurant meal.[37].. However, depending on the reason for the negative evaluation of the object, the social evaluation of the subject may be lowered.[40].
    • A court case in which blog comments such as cosmetics sold by the subject contain steroids are illegal[41]However, defamation was recognized as defamation of the subject because it was intended to "sell the product containing steroids as if the subject did not have steroids". Is understood as an example[40].

The problem of openness and the theory of propagation

Publicity is a clear requirement for defamation charges in Japanese criminal law, but there is no such requirement in civil terms.[17].. However, defamation is an act that lowers social evaluation, and in order for defamation to be established, it is necessary for the speech to be transmitted to others to some extent.[16].. Therefore, it does not make a decisive difference between criminal and civil.[16].

In the past, the judicial precedents (Judgment of the Great Court on October 5, 10, Minority Rights, 12nd page, 22) did not require openness, but the judicial precedents in this position are considered to be an overwhelming minority, and the facts about specific minorities. Since it cannot be said that the social evaluation is lowered by the indication of, it is said that many judicial precedents and practices stand on the theory that openness is necessary.[18] .

However, in criminal defamation, the theory of transmissibility is adopted that even defamation words for a specific minority are recognized as open if there is a possibility that they will be propagated to an unspecified majority. , This theory has been introduced as it is to civil defamation[42].. Regarding the theory of transmissibility, there is also the idea that in defamation under civil law, it is not the possibility of propagation, but whether or not it actually propagated and thereby lowered the social evaluation.[43].

Distinction from opinion or commentary

In criminal defamation, if the social evaluation is lowered by revealing the facts, the crime of defamation becomes a problem, and if the social evaluation is lowered by a method other than the facts, the crime of insult becomes a problem. Common wisdom)[13][14] .

On the other hand, in civil defamation, not only when the facts are revealed, but also when expressing opinions and commentary, if the social evaluation declines, illegal acts due to defamation can be established.[44][45][13][15].. Therefore, there is no practical benefit in distinguishing factual statements and commentary regarding the success or failure of defamation, but there is a practical benefit in that relationship because the applicable exemption doctrine differs between factual statement and commentary.[45].

In general, those who can judge the existence by evidence etc. are distinguished from factual statements, and those who cannot judge the existence are distinguished from commentary.[45][46] .

It should be noted that there is a distinction between arguing against a certain problem and blaming personality.[47].. This is because it is the ironclad rule of a democratic society to counter speech with speech.[48].. Since the opinion should be opposed with the opinion, if the facts that are the premise of the opinion are stated, only that part should be liable for tort due to defamation.OpinionAlso[49].

Intentional / negligent

In criminal defamationDeliberate crimeOnly punishment, but in civil defamation, tort is established even in defamation due to negligence[14].. However, it is said that this is not often an independent issue, as defamation expressions are often made intentionally or at least by negligence.[50].

Damage and relief

Details of damage

The view that defamation damage is a decline in social reputation, but that it is exhaustive and that it includes the victim's subjective heartache.[51]There is.

Restitution for Damages

in Japan,CivilThe means to recover the above damage ismoneybycompensationIs the principle (Article 417 of the Civil Code,Principles of financial compensation).

Of these, compensation for mental damage rather than material damage is called a compensation.[52].

Apology advertisement

In Japan, about defamation,Civil Code Article 723(In case of copyright infringementCopyright Law Article 115(It is also the basis), "appropriate disposition to restore honor"裁判 所Is supposed to be able to order. This measure will restore the social reputation that has declined due to defamation. A concrete example of this measureApology advertisement.

Here, when the court orders an apology advertisement, interference with freedom of thought and conscience becomes a problem, but the Supreme Court "just confesses the truth of the situation and expresses its apology. It is possible to order an apology advertisement "for things" (it cannot be understood that it requires "ethical will, infringement of freedom of conscience" as a basis, and it is so-called in Article 733 of the Civil Code. "It should be an appropriate disposition.") And "It must be said that compulsory execution is also obtained by the procedure of Article XNUMX of the Civil Code as an alternative act." (Civil Code Law XNUMX at that time) Article is currentCivil Enforcement Law, Article 171, Paragraph 1) (Showa 28 (e) 1241[53]).

Annihilation prescription

In Japan, the right to claim damages due to defamation tort shall be extinguished if it is not exercised for three years from the time when the damage and the perpetrator are known, or if 3 years have passed from the time of the tort (Civil Code Article 20). )[54].. It is understood that torts on the Internet are being carried out on a daily basis until they are deleted, and if you file a lawsuit within three years after the end of the tort, three years have passed since you recognized defamation. Extinction prescription does not hold regardless of whether or not[55][56].

The doctrine of defamation illegality prevention and immunity

The doctrine of truth and equivalence

In Japan, there is a defense of truth and a defense of appropriateness regarding defamation due to the facts being revealed.PrecedentApproved above[57][58].. There is no explicit provision such as Article 230-2 of the Penal Code for defamation of civil affairs in Japan.[59], Has been recognized by case law since the approval of the Supreme Court's decision on June 41, 6 (Minshu Vol. 23, No. 20, p. 5), and freedom of expression with reference to the purpose of Article 1118-230 of the Penal Code. This is an exemption reason provided from the viewpoint of guaranteeing[60][59].

In the doctrine of truthfulness and equivalence, the act of expression in question is identified.PeopleEven if it lowers the social evaluation of the public, it is a factual indication that it is related to the specific interests of the public (public nature), and its purpose is exclusively for the public interest (public interest). (Public interest), the facts revealed真 実It is a doctrine that defamation does not hold when there is a good reason for (truth) or believing that it is true (truth).[61].

  1. The facts revealed are facts of public interest (public nature)
    "Facts concerning public interest" means "in light of the content and nature of the facts that have been revealed, it is recognized that it is in the public interest to reveal the facts objectively."[62].
    The doctrine of truthfulness and equivalence requires that all three requirements be met. Therefore, if it lacks publicity, it will be liable for tort even if it is true.[63].
    It should be noted that the Japanese case law does not take the structure of "public figure or private person", but takes the norm as to whether or not the facts revealed correspond to "facts concerning public interest".[64].. In the United States, public figures will be described later.Actual malice doctrineThe doctrine of defamation is different because it is considered to be valid, but in Japan it is only one of the factors to judge whether or not it corresponds to "facts about public interest", and the concept of "public figure" in the United States is also It has been pointed out that the judgment is based on factors such as the public nature of the subject of speech.[64].
  2. The purpose of clarifying that fact is exclusively for the public interest (public interest)
    It is said that the charitable purpose must exist "exclusively", but the judicial precedent does not give such a strict interpretation.[65].. In addition, if the public interest of the facts is recognized, the public interest of the purpose is often recognized, but there are many court cases in which the public interest of the purpose is denied while affirming the public nature of the facts.[65].. There is debate about the propriety of requiring the actor's subjective purpose in addition to the public nature and truthfulness or truthfulness of the facts revealed.[65].
  3. The facts revealed are true (truth), or there is a good reason for believing that they are true (truth equivalence)
    In the doctrine of truthfulness and equivalence, the burden of proof of truthfulness and truthfulness is entirely borne by the defendant (expressor).[66][59].
    The idea is that the artist must not be vague as long as he or she endangers the honor of a person.[67].. On the other hand, burdening the proof of truth without leaking the facts revealed may lead to atrophy of speech.[67].. Some Supreme Court cases endorsed the judgment of the original judgment that the scope of proof of truth was sufficient for the "important part" (October 58, 10, Supreme Court Judgment No. 20, p. 1112).[67][68].
    For example, in the case of rumors, the object of proof of truth is not the existence of the rumors themselves, but the facts of the rumors (the Supreme Court's decision on January 39, 1 as a case that endorsed the original judgment).[69].. However, since the object of proof of truth is determined by the interpretation of how the reader perceives it, it is understood that even in the form of rumors, the description differs depending on whether or not the description was made on the premise that the rumors are true. Is[70].
    Even if the truth cannot be proved, defamation will not be established if the actor has a good reason to believe the fact to be true.[71].. However, in order to be justified, it is necessary for the actor to misunderstand the truth and to have a good reason in the light of reliable materials and grounds.[72][71].. The Supreme Court said, "Even in the case of acts of expression by individual users of the Internet, as in other cases, it is considerable in light of certain materials and grounds that the facts revealed by the actors were mistrusted as true. Defamation is not established only when it is recognized that there is a reason (Supreme Court, March 22, 3, Judgment, Vol. 15, No. 64, p. 2), causing more serious damage than conventional defamation. It is considered that there is a risk of giving and the recovery of damage due to opposition is not certain.[73].. This case (decided by the Supreme Court on March 22, 3) was a case in which a magazine article was used as part of the reference material, but as a result, its validity has been denied.[74].

It is a factual indication that it is related to the specific interests of the public, and if the purpose is solely for the public interest, it is said that if the revealed fact is true, it lacks illegality and is true. Even if it is not proved to be true, when it is recognized that it is appropriate for the actor to believe that it is true, there is no intentional or negligence and no illegal act is established.[59].

Since the burden of proof on the part of the expressor is heavy for the doctrine of truthfulness and equivalence, from the viewpoint of guaranteeing public speech, the content of the exemption requirement and the burden of proof of claim are based on public speech and non-public speech. There is a view that there is a difference in the burden and it should be[66].

In Germany, although the investigation obligation (Nachforschungpflight) has been exhausted, if a false claim is made and it is made in order to defend the legitimate interests, it is not a tort. It is said (German civil law).[75]

Fair commentary doctrine

Matters concerning the public interest when defamation due to commentary is questioned(English editionIt is an Anglo-American law that exempts you from liability when[76].

In Japan, case law recognizes the defense of truth and the doctrine of appropriateness for defamation due to the facts being revealed.[58].. However, for defamation due to opinions or commentary, different defense grounds are required because it is not possible to prove the truth itself.[58].. Therefore, even in Japan, the doctrine of Anglo-American law is not adopted as it is, but it is a doctrine established through the Supreme Court case.[76].

In the doctrine of fair commentary, in addition to publicity, openness, truthfulness or appropriateness, it is necessary that the requirement is "not to deviate from the scope of opinion or commentary such as personal attack".[77][78].

Actual malice doctrine

The United States of AmericaFederal Supreme CourtIn the case law of 1964(English editionSinceActual maliceThe doctrine has been established. this is,Public figuresThe act of expression referring to is defamation if it is proved to have been done with real malicious intent, and the plaintiff is obliged to prove it.[79].

If the actual malice doctrine is adopted, the scope of defamation for public figures will be narrowed.Yasuo Hasebe is involved in the act of expression due to the large amount of damages being granted in the background of the recognition of such a doctrine.Atrophic effectInsists that there is a need to suppress[80].

In Japan, the media and others have claimed to adopt the actual malice doctrine, but the court has made a judgment based on the doctrine of truth and truthfulness, and the actual malice doctrine has not been adopted.[81], The obligation to prove the truth lies with the defendant[82].

The doctrine of exemption in the case of speech exchange

The issue is that if a person whose honor has been defamed responds with speech in order to protect himself, special consideration such as exemption from liability may be required for that exchange.[83].. Exempted if reciprocal speech meets the requirements of self-defense[84].. However, due to the urgency requirement, in the case of reciprocal speech, it is understood that there is no room for self-defense unless defamation is actually being carried out, so there is room for exemption in cases other than self-defense. Is there a problem?[85].. Self-help is prohibited in principle in the rule-of-law nation, so caution is required, but there is controversy because there is a concern that leaving everything to a judicial solution will cramp freedom of expression.[83].

Legitimate business conduct

Even if the disclosure of a certain fact damages the honor of another person, it is a ground for prohibiting illegality when it is a legitimate business act.[86].

  • Disclosure of the fact of dismissal by the company is permitted as long as it is a public notice method that respects the honor and credibility of the dismissed employee as much as possible using the minimum necessary expressions.[87].
  • The act of notifying a third party by a lawyer prevents illegality except in exceptional cases such as when the lawyer is maliciously grossly negligent about the fact that it is against public order and morals or that the fulfillment of the request will result in illegal results. Be done[88].

Group action right

It is said that there is room for defamation from the viewpoint of guaranteeing the right of workers to act as a group.[89].

Victim consent

If there is the consent of the victim, the tort will not be established as a reason for blocking illegality, and even in the case of defamation, the consent of the victim will be a reason for blocking illegality.[90].

Cases related to case law

Defamation is often as in the case belowPoliciesIt becomes a problem together with the infringement of. Until the right to privacy was advocated, it was heard as defamation.

Regarding precedents and cases related to privacy infringementPoliciesSee alsoFreedom of expressionThe case law isFreedom of expression # Major precedents on freedom of expressionSee also

Infringement of honor

In civil terms, "honor" protected as defamation is an external honor.[8].. External honor refers to the evaluation of a person's reputation or reputation given by society.[6][7].

On the other hand, honorary feelings refer to the sense of values ​​and feelings (so-called pride and self-esteem) that the person has toward himself, but honorary feelings can also be infringed.[6][97].

However, immediately recognizing liability for damages for statements that hurt pride or self-esteem not only makes speech cramped, but also results in protection for those with higher pride, so infringement of honor is an immediate issue of legal protection. Not thought to be[98].

The Tokyo District Court's decision on December 8, 12 stated that the feelings of honor were "a matter of inner heart, there are large individual differences, and what kind of words and actions of others would hurt the feelings of honor, and to what extent it would be hurt. There are also significant individual differences in this regard, and it is difficult to ascertain the existence and extent of infringement, saying that it is not easy for others to know. "[99].

However, there is a limit to the infringement of honorary feelings, which isMoral rightsIt is said that tort is established when it corresponds to infringement of[100].

The previous judgment of the Tokyo District Court on December 8, 12 states that it would be an illegal act if it falls under the category of "a clear and serious infringement that is difficult to overlook and would hurt anyone's feelings of honor." To do[99].

Unlike defamation, infringement of honorary feelings does not require openness because it causes infringement if the subject knows it.[101].. Also, unlike defamation, where external honor is a problem, there is no room for infringement of honorary feelings because there is no feeling in corporations and other organizations.[102].


[How to use footnotes]

注 釈


  1. ^ "Meaning of truthfulness --goo Japanese dictionary”(Japanese). goo dictionary. 2022/3/15Browse.
  2. ^ Defamation and Infringement of Honorary Feelings-Ritsumeikan University
  3. ^ "What is the reason for defamation in the facts?Three conditions that do not hold | IT Lawyer Navi”(Japanese). IT Lawyer Navi. 2022/5/18Browse.
  4. ^ a b [Article] --On the relief of defamation of the dead --Positive law grounds By Noriaki Isomoto · 1998
  5. ^ Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 2.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h Minoru Otani 2013, p. 162.
  7. ^ a b c d Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 2.
  8. ^ a b c Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 4.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g Yumi Sato "Reconstruction of defamation charges (1) From the perspective of privacy protection"Hokkaido University Law Studies," Vol. 62, No. 5, 2012, pp. 1314-1267, ISSN 0385-5953, NOT 40019198198.
  10. ^ "Constituent requirements for defamation due to slander | Toranomon Law and Patent Office for legal counseling and lawyers in Minato Ward". www.toranomon-law.jp. 2022/1/21Browse.
  11. ^ Susumu Hirano, "American Illegal Act", p. 198 and below
  12. ^ a b See Supreme Court, January 39, 1, Vol. 28, No. 18, p. 1
  13. ^ a b c d e f Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 111.
  14. ^ a b c d e f Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 27.
  15. ^ a b c d e Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 28.
  16. ^ a b c Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 54.
  17. ^ a b Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 112.
  18. ^ a b Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 111.
  19. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 24.
  20. ^ https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_jp/detail2?id=55168
  21. ^ "Bulletin of Ritsumeikan University Institute of Humanities NO.84" (March 2004)
  22. ^ Douglas W. Vick and Linda Macpherson, An Opportunity Lost: The United Kingdom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law (1997), Federal Communications Law Journal Volume 49 Issue 3, p624
  23. ^ (English edition, The Cost of Reputation: Defamation Law and Practice in Russia (PDF) (2007) p37 38
  24. ^ Japanophile writer loses 9600 million won compensation order(Chosun Ilbo September 2005, 9)
  25. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 27.
  26. ^ See Shizuoka District Court, July 56, 7, Judgment No. 17, p. 1011
  27. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 28.
  28. ^ 東京地方裁判所昭和52年7月19日判決判時857号65頁、東京高等裁判所昭和54年3月14日判決判時918号21頁参照
  29. ^ See Tokyo High Court, March 54, 3, Judgment Hourly Bulletin No. 14, p. 918.
  30. ^ See Tokyo High Court, March 54, 3, Judgment No. 14, p. 918
  31. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 30.
  32. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 31.
  33. ^ Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 21.
  34. ^ a b c Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 5.
  35. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, pp. 16–17.
  36. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 33.
  37. ^ a b c Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 132.
  38. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 35.
  39. ^ At the time of the judgment of the Tokyo District Court on February 7, 2, No. 5, p. 616, Minshu Vol. 83, No. 18, p. 1
  40. ^ a b Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, pp. 132–133.
  41. ^ Tokyo District Court, September 20, 9 Judgment Ta 9, p. 1305
  42. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 55.
  43. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 56.
  44. ^ See Yoshio Shiomi, "Tort Law," p. 72 et seq.
  45. ^ a b c Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 75.
  46. ^ Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 220.
  47. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 22.
  48. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 21.
  49. ^ Shigenori Matsui "Defamation by Opinion and Freedom of Expression" Civil and Commercial Code Magazine Vol. 113, No. 3, p. 327
  50. ^ Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 25.
  51. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 200.
  52. ^ Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 284.
  53. ^ Supreme Court En Banc July 31, 7 Showa 4 (e) 28 Apology Advertising Request Judgment Minshu Vol. 1241, No. 10, p. 7 There is a dissenting opinion based on Article 19 of the Japanese Constitution
  54. ^ Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 310.
  55. ^ Tokyo District Court Judgment on January 24, 1
  56. ^ Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 311.
  57. ^ For the part related to tort liability, see Yoshio Shiomi's "Tort Law", page 70 and below.
  58. ^ a b c Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 235.
  59. ^ a b c d Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 162.
  60. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 278.
  61. ^ Supreme Court First Small Court Judgment on June 41, 1966[1]
  62. ^ Tokyo District Court Dec. 2, 12 Judgment No. 20, p. 1637
  63. ^ Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 164.
  64. ^ a b Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 298.
  65. ^ a b c Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 296.
  66. ^ a b Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 279.
  67. ^ a b c Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 300.
  68. ^ Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 182.
  69. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, pp. 302–303.
  70. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 303.
  71. ^ a b Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 194.
  72. ^ Supreme Court En Banc June 44, 6 Judgment Collection Vol. 25, No. 23, p. 7
  73. ^ Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 195.
  74. ^ Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 200.
  75. ^ E. Deutsch, by HJ Ahrens, translated by Michitaro Urakawa, "German Tort Law", p. 181 or less, especially 183 or less
  76. ^ a b Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 342.
  77. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 344.
  78. ^ Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 236.
  79. ^ Overview of the U.S. Government – ​​Breakthrough Judgment by the Supreme Court | About THE USA | American Center JAPAN
  80. ^ Yasuo Hasebe, Constitution (3rd Edition), p. 164
  81. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 352.
  82. ^ Shigenori Matsui 2013, pp. 198–200.
  83. ^ a b Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 354.
  84. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, pp. 354–355.
  85. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 355.
  86. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 359.
  87. ^ Tokyo District Court Dec. 52, 12 Judgment No. 19, p. 1492
  88. ^ Tokyo District Court Dec. 5, 5 Judgment No. 25, p. 1637
  89. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 374.
  90. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 376.
  91. ^ [2]
  92. ^ [3]
  93. ^ [4] Hidehiko Nagao "Critique of Teachers' Educational Content and Defamation" Chuyo Hogaku 27 (2), 41-45, 1992-12-22
  94. ^ [5]
  95. ^ [6] (PDF) Mitori Uesato "Recent Court Cases on Defamation" OIKE LIBRARY NO.26
  96. ^ [7]
  97. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 79.
  98. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, pp. 79–80.
  99. ^ a b Tokyo District Court, September 8, 12 Judgment Ta 24, p. 955
  100. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 80.
  101. ^ Takeyuki Matsuo 2016, p. 313.
  102. ^ Katsuhiko Tsukuda 2008, p. 82.


Related item

    Social evaluation


    Back to Top