>>25798632Intention matters, but not how you might think. It won't save you if you can't prove other matters.
To summarize, first the court looks at whether your statement harmed the plaintiff's reputation. This is pretty easy to prove either way, especially for a well-known figure or company.
Now, if it did, the defendant gets the burden of proof. Not the plaintiff. The order the court usually goes by is:
1. Is the allegation of public concern? (For example, it is of public concern to publicize an affair between a cabinet minister and a cult leader because it affects the nation. It is not of public concern to publicize, say, match fixing or a pop star affair.)
2. Is the statement made solely for the benefit of the public?
3. Is the allegation true, or do the defendants have good reason to believe it true?
The defendant needs to prove every one of these true. At any point - say, public concern - if they fail, the court can skip consideration of the other factors and instantly rule in favor of the plaintiff. And it is obviously really difficult to clear even the first hurdle for most defendants to escape, given the kind of precedents that already exist in the system.
It's no surprise, then, that Japan has a 69.7% win rate of defamation cases, compared to 17% in the US.
