Abstract
Along with the digitalization of society including the prevalence of social media, damages caused by online defamation are growing in severity. As a damage protection measure, the judicial procedure for the “Right to Demand Disclosure of Identification Information of the Sender”—a legal provision that permits the disclosure of the names and other details of those who have posted information violating the rights of others—was simplified and expedited in October 2022. How far will it be effective against recurring online defamation damages? This paper examines the effects and challenges of the new system. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of guaranteeing the freedom of expression, a careful decision is required when forcibly revealing the identity of a sender who has posted information on the premise of anonymity, and it will be imperative to ensure a balance between the interests of both ends. Another point of issue is how the mass media should confront what is known as the pollution of the digital media ecosystem caused by an enormous amount of misinformation and disinformation, which can act as a source of defamation. Taking a cue from a rumor research method that the dissemination level of misinformation/disinformation depends on the “importance” and “ambiguity” of the information to the information recipient, the author looked into recent defamation cases in detail and found out that the mass media have room for ingenuity in how to communicate the information and that the mass media’s reporting counter news against false information may curb the spread. Furthermore, with the rapid digitalization of society, the mass media have come to be expected to undertake fact-checking more proactively to verify whether a given information on the internet is the truth or not. This paper discusses how to address the “possibilities” and “risks” of freedom of anonymous expression.
