>>19082016Mostly it's used for individuals, in particular for politicians and celebrities to fuck over celebrity rags.
>Before going into detail, it would be helpful to explain briefly the overall structureof Japanese defamation law. First, a plaintiff needs to show that the defendant harmed
the plaintiff’s reputation, which is an objective appreciation the plaintiff receives from
society concerning personal worth, such as one’s character, virtue, honor, and trustworthiness (No name given Sup. Ct. 1981),5 with intent or negligence (Minpo¯. art. 709).6
>If a plaintiff meets this requirement, then the burden of proof shifts to the defendant.According to a Supreme Court opinion (No name given Sup. Ct. 1966),7 defendants have to prove that (1) the allegation was of public concern, (2) the statement was
made solely for the benefit of the public,8 and (3) the allegation was true or the
defendants had reason to believe that the statement was true (defense of truth) in order
to balance freedom of speech and interest to reputation.9 Although courts can address
the three requirements in any order, they usually decide according to the order above.
>When defendants fail to prove any of these requirements, courts can rule in favor of theplaintiff without addressing the rest of the requirements. Therefore, plaintiffs can still
win even if defamatory statements were true, as long as the statements lack the
requirements of “public concern.”
>Some Japanese legal scholars, from the point of view of protecting freedom ofspeech, were concerned about the deterrent effect on media reporting, stating that a
defendant’s burden of proof is too heavy (O¯ ishi 2004, 106–08; Matsui 2005, 102–08). It
is difficult for a defendant to fulfill the requirement to prove that defamatory statements
were true or could be reasonably believed to be true (Matsui 2005, 107). These scholars
proposed lowering the protection of public figures by requiring public figure plaintiffs to
prove actual malice as in New York Times v. Sullivan (O¯ ishi 2004, 106-08; Matsui 2005,
102–08) or by lowering the burden of proving reasonable belief (Kyo¯no 2008, 50–52).
However, Japanese courts never accepted these proposals.
So, even if Korekore's allegations meet (3) - even that is dubious based on his "evidence" - he is still solidly fucked if Cover decides to sue.
