TOKYO - An Osaka court has found a journalist to be culpable of defamation for a retweet, in a case that may have ramifications as Japan updates its laws for a digital age.
In the decision last week, journalist and social commentator Yasumi Iwakami, 60, was ordered to pay 330,000 yen (S$4,210) in damages to former Osaka governor Toru Hashimoto for defamation of character via a retweet. Mr Hashimoto had sued for 1.1 million yen.
Mr Iwakami, who currently has 185,900 followers on his verified Twitter account, said that he will appeal against the decision.
Retweets are the republication of a post written by another user, and many Twitter profiles come with disclaimers that "retweets do not equal endorsements".
Some countries like Britain and India have reportedly had cases in which Twitter users have been held liable for retweeting false and defamatory content. Switzerland sees the act of "liking" a defamatory post as grounds for liability, while in South Africa, being tagged by another user in a defamatory post could make one liable as well.
The lawsuit against Mr Iwakami stems from a retweet on Oct 29, 2017, of a third party's post that alleged that employees working under Mr Hashimoto were being driven to suicide.
Although the retweet was subsequently deleted, Mr Hashimoto sued Mr Iwakami on the basis his reach of about 181,000 Twitter followers at the time could impugn his reputation by conveying the impression that he was a perpetrator of power harassment.
Mr Iwakami, in his defence, had said it was an objective, reported fact that employees of Osaka City had died during Mr Hashimoto's term in office.
Presiding Judge Masayuki Suenaga found that there was not enough evidence to verify the allegations that connected Mr Hashimoto to the deaths in the post that Mr Iwakami retweeted, and as such, ruled that the retweet was indicative of endorsing a defamatory post.
He said in his ruling, however, that not all retweets are endorsements, and that retweets could be done for several purposes, including endorsing or criticising the original message.
But in the latter scenario, the judge said: "It is highly unlikely that someone would retweet without making an additional comment. One would generally attach a neutral, if not critical, comment to the original tweet (if there is a point to be made)."
Otherwise, the ruling said, it is fair to interpret a retweet as an implicit endorsement of the original post's contents except in circumstances where there is further context behind why a post is retweeted.
Judge Suenaga noted Mr Iwakami's influence as a journalist with a sizeable Twitter following, which proved his ability to "spread and gain public confidence" and hence, his power to hurt Mr Hashimoto's reputation.
But he added that even if information that has the potential of hurting one's social standing is spread, there would be no grounds for defamation if there was sufficient reason to believe the information was credible. This includes instances when a journalist does his own reporting and publishes a story that is later found to be erroneous.
Lawyer Yohei Shimizu, who is well-versed with Internet law, told the Mainichi Shimbun: "One must be aware at all times that one is spreading information at one's own risk and responsibility. Unless information is retweeted to notify people that the original tweet is a baseless rumour or hoax, it is dangerous to spread information of unclear provenance."
