“Collabo defamation trial” orders “unprecedented compensation” of 3．85 million yen．．． “Danger of society breaking down” is becoming more serious in cyberspace．

On September 24, the Tokyo District Court (Judge Katayama Ken presiding) ordered a self-proclaimed journalist to pay a total of 3.85 million yen in damages and to delete the series of posts he made on what he called his news site and on social media that were derogatory towards the general incorporated association Colabo, which provides support for girls who have been victims of abuse and sexual violence, and its representative, Nito Yumeno (1.65 million yen in damages to Colabo and 2.2 million yen to Nito). The ruling completely rejected the defendant’s claims and severely condemned him. The amount of compensation was also set high for a defamation case. On the other hand, the defendant claims to have raised more than 20 million yen through donations, and is calling for further donations following his loss. This has highlighted the serious problem that judgments ordering damages do not function sufficiently as an effective sanction against perpetrators. The defendant’s actions and the issues at issue
The Tokyo District Court ordered the defendant to pay 3.85 million yen in damages
The defendant’s actions in this case are wide-ranging, but can be broadly divided into the following two: ① He posted articles and videos that defamatory towards the plaintiffs on his website “Echo News R” and YouTube channel “Echo News Channel”.

② He posted photos that violated Nito’s reputation and portrait rights under the name “Otonashi Homura (Echo News)” on Twitter (now X).
The defendant is one of the so-called “free time anons” who repeatedly post slanderous comments against Colabo and Nito on the Internet. As for one representative example, a man who goes by the name “Himazora Akane,” the same Tokyo District Court ruled on July 18 prior to this case that “none of the allegations are found to be true, nor can it be found that the defendant had reasonable grounds for believing them to be true,” ordering him to pay 2.2 million yen in damages (see related article). The defendant appealed.) Here we will introduce the key points of how the defendant justified his alleged actions and what findings the court made. (Omitted)
The content of the articles and videos in question in Action ① allege that the plaintiffs engaged in the following actions: ・”Massive tax evasion” by falsely claiming to be a non-profit organization
・”Fraud” by swindling 36,000 yen out of Shinjuku Ward
・”Poverty business” by recruiting people with intellectual disabilities to make huge profits
・”Special benefits” in which Nito and other executives ate a Wagyu beef course meal for over 10,000 yen
In order to avoid being found defamatory, the defendant claimed that these articles and videos were not “statements of fact” but “expressions of opinions or commentary” and “merely legal opinions.” The court rejected all of the defendant’s arguments, stating that all of them constituted “statement of facts,” and found the claims defamatory as they lowered the plaintiffs’ social standing. Regarding the truthfulness and reasonableness of the allegations, which are grounds for exemption, the court completely denied the defendant’s arguments and the probative value of the evidence it submitted, and determined that “it cannot be recognized that any of the content is true or that the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe it to be true.” Regarding the “public nature of the facts and the public interest of the purpose,” the court stated that “there is no need to consider this.” “Sexually mocking intent” and “purpose to degrade” found. Act 2 involved the defendant tweeting an image of Nito holding a frankfurter sausage close to her mouth, taken when Nito visited a high school cultural festival in an area affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake, with the defendant describing the image as an “indecent photo” and suggesting oral intercourse. The defendant argued that his comments “expressed my shock at Mr. Nito’s shameless and obscene behavior and serve as a rebuttal to Mr. Nito’s statements,” and that “they did not insult Mr. Nito beyond the limits of what is socially acceptable.” In response, the court determined that “there is no statement suggesting any intention to cast doubt on Mr. Nito’s remarks.” The court then went on to strongly state, “We can only conclude that the defendant added obscene language to the photos in question and made the tweets in question with the deliberate intention of sexually mocking Ms. Nito.” It also said, “It can be easily inferred that the tweets were posted with the aim of denigrating Ms. Nito’s position as an activist who supports teenage girls from a position opposed to sexual assault.” Furthermore, it stated that “it is illegal as an insult that goes beyond the limits of what is socially acceptable.” (Omitted).

「Colabo名誉毀損裁判」で385万円の“異例の高額賠償”命令…ネット空間で深刻化する「社会が壊れる危険」（弁護士JPニュース） - Yahoo!ニュース

9月24日、自身のニュースサイトと称するサイトやSNS上で、虐待や性暴力被害を受けた少女に対する支援活動を行う「一般社団法人Colabo」と団体代表の仁藤夢乃氏の名誉を毀損する投稿を繰り返した自称ジ

news.yahoo.co.jp