back to article Japan makes online insults a crime that can earn a year in jail

Japan has updated its penal code to make insulting people online a crime punishable by a year of incarceration. An amendment [PDF] that passed the House of Councillors (Japan's upper legislative chamber) on Monday spells out that insults designed to hurt the reader can now attract increased punishments. Supporters of the …

  1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    I approve

    Even if you can argue that maybe this young lady could have been a bit too sensitive, I think it is high time we put a stop to this widespread Internet habit of insulting people simply because you're not standing in front of them.

    People on the Internet say things they would never dare saying face-to-face. Maybe that's something for the psychiatrists, I don't know, but it is time to clamp down on that.

    1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

      Re: I approve

      Quite. I have never understood what causes apparently normal people to revel in the delights of insulting and abusing someone to the point of suicide. It's not a question of the sensitivity of the recipient, but the motivation of the abuser.

      And for any reason or none: you're the wrong sex, or the wrong colour, or you use a different OS from me, or you're tall, or you're short, or you're left-handed, or you like the wrong football team, or the wrong music, or you used an apostrophe in the wrong place... I'm mystified. Give me a world with variety in it, please, and a lot less abuse.

      1. cupplesey

        Re: I approve

        Insulting and abusing are very different concepts, abuse should be stamped out but an insult is a dangerous thing to jail people for. I insult people as a joke as its mutually accepted between the parties, if then someone thinks it real i could end up prison. Fredom of speech will be lost with a law like that.

        1. elaar

          Re: I approve

          Exactly. How do you define an "insult" exactly? Is it anything that results in someone feeling insulted or offended?

          If I claim a person's comment is ill-informed, or their knowledge lacking, is that an insult? Would inferring someone's an idiot put me in jail, or would I have to directly call them an idiot, which is all just semantics.

          There's a whole world of difference between continued insults with the direct aim to cause harm to someone, and stating that someone is crap at dancing in a TikTok video.

          1. werdsmith Silver badge

            Re: I approve

            In many cultures around the world, the insult is quite normal part of a good relationship between people. For certain in the UK it is absolutely normal for friends to throw the most offensive stuff at each other, and it is a sign of affection.

            In most cases you can get away with it between strangers too, if the right tone is adopted.

            But I think it is obvious when it is intended offensively. Having said that, why would I care what any stranger said about me. Especially online where you know that a certain proportion of people are nutters and the most vociferous are even more likely to be nutters.

            I guess it’s a case of protecting the few that are vulnerable and their mental health is in a place where they take all this vacuous rubbish seriously.

            1. SundogUK Silver badge

              Re: I approve

              You cannot run a society by catering solely to the weakest/most vulnerable/snowflakey individuals in it. A society that does so is going to disintegrate pretty quickly.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: I approve

                Yeah how dare we listen to the bullied or the neurodiverse. It's not like they ever contributed to society in a positive way is it?

                The ones who kick down are not the ones who should have sole ownership of society, either.

                1. LybsterRoy Silver badge

                  Re: I approve

                  You may have some sort of point BUT how dare we always assume the complainee is correct?

              2. LybsterRoy Silver badge

                Re: I approve

                We seem to be trying to.

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: I approve

                I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you just a few years ago, unfortunately the way technology (esp social media) has matured I'm not sure that is viable any more. At one point it became cool to be a troll in certain sections and it seems to have trickled up and been accepted by large parts of the population.

                Perhaps a rewording, insulting with the intent to cause harm, could make it more restricted. Along the lines of defamation laws, where one has to prove not just what was said but that it was intentional and directed towards a goal.

                Not sure I have an answer, nothing really feels right, but I do know the status quo is not acceptable and I fear it'll get much worse before it gets better.

                Personally if all social media companies died overnight the world would be a better place, the platforms profit from 'engagement' (conflict). I noticed it was all poison a decade ago and have long since abandoned all forms of it.

            2. LybsterRoy Silver badge

              Re: I approve

              --For certain in the UK it is absolutely normal for friends to throw the most offensive stuff at each other--

              For those not in the UK I quickly point out that the stuff "thrown" has all the reality and potential for physical harm of an NFT

        2. Peter2 Silver badge

          Re: I approve

          Insulting by definition would be deliberately attempting to reduce somebodies sense of self worth.

          If your "jokes" can be shown to be amusing to a court then i'm sure that they'd take them in the spirit they were intended. In any case, adding a prison sentence to the list of available punishments doesn't mean that you will end up in prison. In the UK you'd get a fine and community service on the first offense, a fine and a suspended sentence on the second offence and then in prison on the third.

          Unless somebody does something like bullying somebody to the point they commit suicide, at which point they'd probably end up in jail on the first offence. But since your just "joking" then there is no chance of this, is there?

          And we'd still have freedom of speech. What you wouldn't have is freedom from consequences.

          1. Ian Johnston Silver badge

            Re: I approve

            Insulting by definition would be deliberately attempting to reduce somebodies sense of self worth.

            And we have a generation growing up for whom their sense of self-worth is of supreme importance, regardless of whether it's justified. Shall we make "disrespecting" a crime too? How about "shaming"?

          2. SundogUK Silver badge

            Re: I approve

            You do not understand what freedom of speech means.

          3. cornetman Silver badge

            Re: I approve

            > And we'd still have freedom of speech. What you wouldn't have is freedom from consequences.

            "Stand still or I will shoot you. You are free to walk away though."

          4. doublelayer Silver badge

            Re: I approve

            "Insulting by definition would be deliberately attempting to reduce somebodies sense of self worth."

            Maybe it's just me, but this appears to define one nebulous term with a nebulous phrase. What lowers a person's sense of self-worth, and what negative things don't? This depends a lot on the person. Something as simple as "Your statements are factually incorrect" can be unpleasant for someone to hear if their self-worth contained knowledge and accuracy as components. Yet it also might be entirely true. This is from my own experience--I try to be accurate when claiming things, and if someone points out that I've gotten a fact wrong, I feel a little ashamed that I failed in my self-given duty to properly establish the facts before making an argument based on them. That doesn't mean the comment was insulting to me, and even if I interpreted it that way, someone shouldn't be penalized for contradicting me.

          5. LybsterRoy Silver badge

            Re: I approve

            --If your "jokes" can be shown to be amusing to a court then i'm sure that they'd take them in the spirit they were intended.--

            Robin Hood Airport

        3. LybsterRoy Silver badge

          Re: I approve

          Whilst I agree with you I'd just like to point out that, in general, the people I insult are right there in front of me, or at least well know. On the internet all to often its people you don't know that are being insulted.

          However, I do claim an exception for any and all Reg readers for bi-directional insulting!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I approve

      Oh look, another person that doesn't understand the meaning of free speech nor the ramifications of allowing the state to suppress it through legislation.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I approve

        Free speech does not mean free of consequence.

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: I approve

          You say that like a mantra. It's not.

          1. ArrZarr Silver badge

            Re: I approve

            Obligatory XKCD - https://xkcd.com/1357/

            1. MarkTriumphant

              Re: I approve

              Which sort of proves the point. Freedom of speech means that the government should not regulate it. Responses from others are fine, but I'm uncomfortable with the though of the government have full control of speech.

              1. Irony Deficient

                Freedom of speech means that the government should not regulate it.

                Government has long been involved in the regulation of speech; for example, anywhere that perjury is a crime. Does freedom of speech disappear wherever materially lying under oath is regulated?

                1. doublelayer Silver badge

                  Re: Freedom of speech means that the government should not regulate it.

                  In the case of perjury, it doesn't limit the freedom of speech. Perjury makes providing false evidence to a court a crime. Whether you provide that evidence by saying it, giving them a fake piece of paper, or claiming to be someone you're not, it's always perjury. Those individual things can also be crimes (the piece of paper might be a forgery, but it might not), and the perjury is simply about the integrity of evidence. Similarly, speaking to incite violence is a crime because you incited violence, not because you spoke. The point of free speech is that the saying of something can't be a crime, but its effects can be. Many countries haven't stuck to that definition and have restricted that freedom, for example by criminalizing insulting the leader or advocating alternative government.

                  1. Irony Deficient

                    Re: Freedom of speech means that the government should not regulate it.

                    Whether you provide that evidence by saying it, giving them a fake piece of paper, or claiming to be someone you’re not, it’s always perjury.

                    No, it’s not always perjury; if what is provided is not material to the matter at hand, then it’s not perjury. For example, if someone is giving eyewitness evidence under oath on the theft of a telephone pole, and claims to be someone that he isn’t while describing what he’d seen when the telephone pole was being removed, then it’s not perjury if his identity is immaterial to what he’d seen.

                    The point of free speech is that the saying of something can’t be a crime, but its effects can be. Many countries haven’t stuck to that definition and have restricted that freedom, for example by criminalizing insulting the leader or advocating alternative government.

                    But those same countries would argue that their regulation of certain speech is for the prevention of those effects; for example, the recent Russian law that provides for up to 15 years in prison for certain speech classified as “disinformation” was justified by its supporters as preventing the effects of “distorting the purpose, rôle and tasks of the Russian armed forces, as well as other units during special military and other operations”.

                    Consider articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

                    12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the ​protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

                    19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to ​hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

                    Would you say that the right to protection of the law (i.e. regulation by government) against attacks upon a person’s honor and reputation is not a limitation on the right to freedom of expression (i.e. freedom of speech)?

                    1. LybsterRoy Silver badge

                      Re: Freedom of speech means that the government should not regulate it.

                      The two articles you quote seem to contradict each other a bit....

                      --nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.--

                      If someone claims the earth is flat I should have the right to call him a moron, idiot, nutter etc

                      Article 19 seems to give me that right

                      -- Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;--

                      Which article wins?

                      1. Irony Deficient

                        Which article wins?

                        I’d imagine that it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case in which these articles are at odds with each other. For example, if that person who claims that Earth is flat happens to be an infamous serial child rapist, then it could be argued that his reputation is already so low that calling him a “moron”, “idiot”, “nutter”, &c. would not bring his reputation any lower. Alternatively, while you have the right to freedom of opinion regarding that person, Article 12 could well limit your Article 19 right to freedom of expression of that opinion if the traditional psychological definitions of “idiot” and “moron” were shown to be inapplicable in that person’s case, and your comments were thus treated as slander. (“I’m not a nutter — I’ve never gathered nuts in my life!”)

        2. nintendoeats

          Re: I approve

          It does actually...at least legal consequence. If we refer to On Liberty, the intent of such principles is that we might find it reasonable to make "causing certain events by speech" illegal, but we should not make the speech itself illegal.

          So in this case, we might find it appropriate to make a law that says "it is an offence to commit acts which directly lead to a suicide, if that suicide was easily foreseen by the accused", but it does not fit the Harm Principle to make a law that says "it is illegal to make insulting statement, because they may lead to a suicide". We judge the harm, not the act.

          Surely a law that said "it is illegal to cause somebody offense" would be considered too broad and unenforceable to ever see the light of day (in a country that still has some oversight from the judiciary).

          1. Ian Johnston Silver badge

            Re: I approve

            Surely a law that said "it is illegal to cause somebody offense" would be considered too broad and unenforceable to ever see the light of day (in a country that still has some oversight from the judiciary).

            It took the Court of Appeal to stop the College of Policing claiming that all "hate speech" incidents should be recorded, even if there was no suggestion of any crime.

            Humberside Police decided to record the tweets as a “non-crime hate incident” in accordance with the College of Policing’s 2014 Hate Crime Operational Guidance. That decision was “simply on the say so of [the complainant] and without any critical scrutiny of the tweets or any assessment of whether what she was saying was accurate.”

            And Merseyside Police had to apologize for putting up posters saying that "causing offence is an offence".

            UK cops are very, very keen to clamp down on any notion of free speech.

            1. nintendoeats

              Re: I approve

              Disturbing. Cue more lyrics from Diamond Dogs...

            2. Version 1.0 Silver badge

              Re: I approve

              Yes, but it looks like the UK Government is making protest an offense these days so the cops are probably just doing what their bosses are telling them to do.

            3. LybsterRoy Silver badge

              Re: I approve

              I think its because it improves the crime clear up rate vis-a-vis real crime

            4. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Mike 137 Silver badge

            Re: I approve

            a law that says "it is an offence to commit acts which directly lead to a suicide, if that suicide was "easily foreseen by the accused""

            Given that it's terribly sad we're in a cultural framework that seems to require such measures, we nevertheless must consider practicability. "Committing an act which directly leads to a suicide" is effectively unprovable as there is no consistent demonstrable causal chain across cases, so objective evidence of causality is usually lacking, particularly in the case of verbal or textual communications. There has been one case on record to my knowledge where the victim was specifically advised to commit suicide, but such cases are extremely rare and probably a small proportion of those where there is nevertheless a tenuous apparent link between comment and outcome.

            These are hard problems to solve (if indeed they are actually soluble at all), and making 'insulting someone' a criminal offence is not probably a very effective solution, all the more as what constitutes an 'insult' in a specific case is so hard to determine, being highly subjective.

            1. nintendoeats

              Re: I approve

              I agree, such a law is quite difficult to prosecute (though I believe there have been cases where such has been done successfully). However, personally I am not ok with adopting a sweeping law just because the more targeted law is difficult to enforce.

              In the case where an effective targeted law cannot be created or enforced, I would prefer there be no law at all...though I also believe that in most cases some compromise can be reached that maximizes the combination of personal freedom and legal protection from harm. I agree these are very difficult problems to solve...I fear that in an attempt to catch up with the pace of society, the legal system may become worse at solving them.

        3. nintendoeats

          Re: I approve

          By the way, observer the irony that this was posted anonymously (presumably because the writer was concerned about the consequences of their speech...)

        4. cornetman Silver badge

          Re: I approve

          > Free speech does not mean free of consequence.

          If the "consequence" is being killed or being thrown in jail, are you really free though?

          That's a very high bar you are setting. By that thinking, the only way someone's freedom to speak could be curtailed would be to have their mouth sewn shut or their vocal chords removed.

        5. HandleAlreadyTaken

          Re: I approve

          >Free speech does not mean free of consequence.

          Yup, just like it was in Soviet Russia. They had full freedom of speech, didn't they? Everybody was free to criticize communism! Of course, afterwards they got packed away to gulags, or worse, but they should have known freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

      2. StewieGriffin

        Re: I approve

        I get what you're getting at but I think it's fair to say that a lot of people who are currently the biggest advocates of free speech, want free speech but don't want to own the consequences of their words. They also seem to want to suppress others free speech. I see this on both sides of the political divide so I'm not pointing fingers.

        However this is an interesting law. Is it a step too far? Probably, but ultimately it comes down to the enforcement and how it is applied (as with all legislation). Very interested to see how this goes.

        Personally I would like to see an internet where intelligent debate is not shutdown by mobs who just lob insults at people who create intelligent, factually correct and insightful posts. It amazes me how an effective technique it seems to be for shutting people down even when the insult is a cliche or just completely ludicrous.

    3. Peter2 Silver badge

      Re: I approve

      People on the Internet say things they would never dare saying face-to-face. Maybe that's something for the psychiatrists, I don't know, but it is time to clamp down on that.

      Because if they said it face to face then they'd run the list of loosing their teeth, or getting a good slapping, as well as becoming a social pariah.

      If they say it online (especially anonymous) then they have total freedom of consequences.

      Removing the total freedom of consequences is not a bad thing.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: I approve

        "Removing the total freedom of consequences is not a bad thing."

        There is a time and a place. The teens trolling the adults on 4chan is all very well and good ... until the likes of the qanon gag winds up on the front page of the news, and idiots decide it is TRVTH ... and the kiddies egg the idiot adults on, causing it to snowball.

      2. Ian Johnston Silver badge

        Re: I approve

        Because if they said it face to face then they'd run the list of loosing their teeth, or getting a good slapping, as well as becoming a social pariah.

        And of course in many cases if they said it face to face they'd run the risk of detention without trial, torture and death. Limiting speech to "things you can say without risk of physical violence" ain't a great aspiration.

      3. Mike 137 Silver badge

        Re: I approve

        "People on the Internet say things they would never dare saying face-to-face. Maybe that's something for the psychiatrists"

        I don't think we need the psychiatrists. It's simpler than that - if you're online you can't be slugged by the person you insulted, so a primary primitive motivation for biting the tongue is absent.

        What's needed is to rise above the state of mind in which satisfaction is gained by insulting, but the psychiatrists can't help there either - it's a matter of human ethical development that not a lot of folks down the centuries have so far accomplished. It's only just over a couple of hundred years since men in England mostly wore swords around town so they could stick anyone who annoyed them enough. So overall we seem to have improved a bit. However, as always happens, as the threat has reduced, we've acclimatised and become just as sensitive to the reduced threat.

        1. Ian Johnston Silver badge

          Re: I approve

          What's needed is to rise above the state of mind in which satisfaction is gained by insulting...

          Or maybe rise above the state of mind which sees an insult as a deadly wrong to be avenged. It appears, for example, that in some London communities simply walking through the wrong estate is insulting to an extent which justifies a retaliatory stabbing.

          I have long ceased to care what randos on the internet think or say about me.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: I approve

            "I have long ceased to care what randos on the internet think or say about me."

            This should be taught in grade-school.

            I remember laughing at the angst people were expressing on CIS, Delphi, BIX and the early Usenet over being called names ... It's a text-only medium, people use text instead of sticks and stones. Be thankful. Be equally thankful that you don't actually need the interactive portion of being online. Be even more thankful that filters exist, should you think otherwise.

            whatever happened to alt.syntax.tactical

        2. Peter2 Silver badge

          Re: I approve

          It's only just over a couple of hundred years since men in England mostly wore swords around town so they could stick anyone who annoyed them enough.

          Wearing swords was fashionable just over 200 years ago to demonstrate how patriotic you were, and suggest just how ready you were to leap into battle with the French who were being stopped from invading at the time only by the Royal Navy blockade of the invasion fleet.

          Contrary to popular belief, people did not just get insulted and whip out a sword and go for somebody. That would have been considerably more socially unacceptable 200 years ago than doing so would be today, and would have met with far more of an immediate and adverse response than is readily comprehensible today.

          Today in the UK you'd get dozens of police try and arrest you without hurting you. The Police Standards people would worry about having deployed batons or tasers and the courts might give them maybe a year in prison if that.

          Then? They'd kill you. The town watch would say "uh, no." and call out the militia, yeomanry or army and you have been hunted down and summarily killed like a dangerous animal at the slightest resistance, and "yeah, we shot him with a few .70 calibre musket balls" would have been perfectly accepted by everybody involved without question. If you surrendered? They'd be a trial, they'd be sentenced to death and hung. Being out at night with a blackened face was punishable by death, let alone running around threatening your betters with a sword.

          You'd have ended up buried in an unmarked and unconsecrated grave as a symbol that even the Church and God who would nominally forgive anything wanted nothing to do with you. You'd forfeited the Church's protection both in this world and the next; being left to face God (or the Devil) alone. To people who believed in both, that was rather a big thing. This si why they didn't have much of a problem with mass

          If you were challenging somebody to a duel as a result of some form of mortal insult then you also didn't whip out swords and go for it, you appointed a friend to enquire of one of his friends if he wished to make a public apology and withdraw his insulting remarks etc or if it needed to make some form of challenge, with lots of back and forth about discussing the finer points of exactly what form of apology needed to be made.

          Long before duelling was eradicated (and duelling was never legally accepted; killing somebody was still murder) the "some form of challenge" had been supplemented with the libel laws we have today, which is why even today admitting that you were wrong and apologising at an early stage makes it effectively impossible to sue you.

          1. Irony Deficient

            (and duelling was never legally accepted; killing somebody was still murder)

            In some places, for some people, duelling was legally accepted, e.g. in at least the monarchical days of Germany and Austria(-Hungary), military officers (who were generally of the nobility) could be dismissed from service if they refused a duel. In Austria-Hungary, duelling by military officers wasn’t outlawed until 1917.

          2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

            Re: running around threatening your betters with a sword

            Not to nitpick, but I do believe that, back in the day, if you had a sword, you were part of "the betters" and much more likely to have the police on your side than on the side of whatever lowlife citizen didn't.

            1. Peter2 Silver badge

              Re: running around threatening your betters with a sword

              Police? What is this modern concept you refer to? (The first police to exist was 1830 and only covered London. This was also long after wearing swords had fell out of fashion since the Napoleonic wars ended ~1815.)

              Prior to that, the upkeep of law and order was the job of a Magistrate, usually a minor member of the local gentry, who would put a town watch in place so he didn't have to personally wander the streets at all hours in search of miscreants, such as for instance people wandering around the streets armed without lawful purpose.

              Wandering around armed and making people nervous of you? Look up "footpad". That's how you'd have been seen at the time, and you'd be dealt with as such.

              1. jake Silver badge

                Re: running around threatening your betters with a sword

                Excuse me? You think 1815 was "long" after 1830?

                Presumably you think the summer of 2007 was a long time ago, too ...

                1. Peter2 Silver badge

                  Re: running around threatening your betters with a sword

                  Wearing swords in public as a fashion was popular in the 17th century, but shortly after the turn of the 18th century Bath banned people from carrying swords within in the city limits and other fashionable society spots at the time followed suit, so over the course of the 18th century the fashion for wearing a sword died off so 1830 would have been quite long after it was commonplace.

                  As noted, there was a brief revival in the early 19th century during the Napoleonic wars when the country was threatened with invasion. (1800-1805) The custom was fairly limited, and it didn't even last the length of the Napoleonic wars. It was definitely very dead after it.

                  Hence if you saw a sword being carried in 1805 at the age of 15, then by 1830 when the met police force was formed for London then you'd have been 35, and 55 by the time you got a police force out in the country.

                  The average life expectancy in 1800 was ~36, just for general reference.

              2. jake Silver badge

                Re: running around threatening your betters with a sword

                "Police? What is this modern concept you refer to?"

                If by "modern" you refer to the Astynomia of 5th century BCE Athens you might have a point. Or perhaps you mean the Ancient Egyptians version, which was well established soon after the beginning of the New Kingdom, call it roughly 1500 BCE.

                Boston, in the US, had it's first Watchmen in 1631 ...

    4. Ciaran McHale

      Re: I approve

      You wrote "Maybe [some people being more inclined to make insulting remarks on the Internet is] something for the psychiatrists".

      Actually, psychological experiments have been done to confirm this tendency. There is some discussion of this in the book "The Lucifer Effect How Good People Turn Evil" by Philip Zimbardo. The idea is not restricted to the Internet. Rather, people are more inclined to act in nasty ways if they feel they are anonymous. Presumably this was the inspiration for the masks of the KKK.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I approve

      People on the Internet say things they would never dare saying face-to-face ... For example:

      With the Oxford comma, “We invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin.” Then without the Oxford comma, “We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin” - this is clearly an educational joke if you understand how the comma works, but in the USA there has been action against teachers who use the joke in their classrooms. I think that's actually an example of the typical poor American grammar usage but it is clearly a joke, it's been making me laugh for years now.

      1. Irony Deficient

        this is clearly an educational joke if you understand how the comma works,

        It’s clearly an educational joke if one understands that an appositive phrase can use the same punctuation as a list without an Oxford comma. But an appositive phrase can also use the same punctuation as a list with an Oxford comma: for example, in a book dedication with an Oxford comma that states “To my father, Boris Johnson, and the unsung manufacturers of hair care products”, the author’s father’s identity is ambiguous because it is unclear whether “Boris Johnson” was listed in apposition to “my father”.

      2. Robert Carnegie Silver badge

        Re: I approve

        I suppose they can't do the apocryphal, "This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God", in American public schools, either.

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: I approve

          Don't be silly. Of course they can.

          What they can't do is teach religion. No loss, that.

    6. This post has been deleted by its author

    7. Potemkine! Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: I approve

      I think it is high time we put a stop to this widespread Internet habit of insulting people simply because you're not standing in front of them.

      You Bastard! ;-P

    8. SundogUK Silver badge

      Re: I approve

      "People on the Internet say things they would never dare saying face-to-face."

      So what? It's an entirely different environment and humanity is developing the protocols that are appropriate for it. And the idea that I could be imprisoned for calling you a tosspot online is insane. Tosspot.

    9. Tron Silver badge

      Re: I approve

      You may approve, but this is the beginning of the end of web 2.0 online as fascistic regimes crack down on the net. Then, when you approve of something, you will only be able to tell your family, fellow drinkers at your local pub, or by writing a letter to 'The Times' and being one of the lucky few.

      Probably best not to be rude about Boris or Putin on here if you are an ex-pat in Japan. But why would you be rude about them - I am sure you wouldn't want to have a negative effect on their mental health.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Maybe treat mental instead of hiding

    While the law is needed maybe people with issues of mental health and disorders should get identified early limited from social media and registered monitored and tracked until taken off the suicide list.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Maybe treat mental instead of hiding

      Brilliant! Instead of individuals hounding someone to suicide get the state to do it.

      Do you even start to think about the outcome of you suggestion or is it literally just the first thing that springs to mind?

      1. LybsterRoy Silver badge

        Re: Maybe treat mental instead of hiding

        I feel that your reaction to the comment is justification for making it. Essentially you have two options:

        1. stop everyone from saying anything that someone else may find hurtful

        2. protect those who are not robust enough to shrug off the "insults"

        The comment was option 2. Where your interpretation comes from I fail to understand.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Maybe treat mental instead of hiding

          "Hi! I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you!"

          There's a reason that's commonly seen as cause to find somewhere else to be very quickly....

      2. jake Silver badge

        Re: Maybe treat mental instead of hiding

        Oh, don't be daft. Instead of treating the ill, we need to ban everybody. Or so the ultra-left wingnuts seem to think. The ultra-right would prefer to just shoot 'em.

        The vast majority of people in the middle (you know, the normal people) would much prefer that anybody who needs medical help of any kind will get it.

        Especially the wingnut whack-jobs on both sides, who need all the help they can get.

  3. Trigun

    Be very careful what you wish for

    The problem here is what constitutes 'insulting'. Death threats? Definitely. Usually, those are not insults though and I think that most juristictions have specific laws in this area. So that leaves us with harrassment and hate speech. Again, there are usually specific laws.

    So we're left with someone making a mean comment and they want to possibly nuke people's financial future and/or imprison them (which can also have the same financial effect) because someone interpreted a comment as insulting?

    This seems to a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy which has possibly not been thought through and will absolutely have a chilling effect. Look at the UK's hate speech laws: That has had the same effect on occaison and has absolutely been weaponised.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: someone making a mean comment

      You seem to be assuming the mild end of the behaviour in question - generally these debates are not initiated by "a mean comment" (i.e. one), but by a continuous and sustained series of comments, over a period of weeks or months, typically being of a more unpleasant nature than what would normally be described as merely "mean".

      However, where the boundary is for legal action is, as you say, rather tricky to define, and there is potential for the boundary to be moved too far one way (or perhaps to far the other). But that doesn't mean that trying to define such a boundary isn't useful.

      1. Trigun

        Re: someone making a mean comment

        Fair enough, although what you describe would be covered by harrassment, surely?

      2. cornetman Silver badge

        Re: someone making a mean comment

        We should also consider the cumulative effect of many comments which might in isolation be considered fairly innocuous.

        To someone that is sensitive to their appearance, they might be able to shrug off one idle back-handed comment. However, if you are faced with a barrage of the same, the social effect is amplified. Was just thinking about this recently after watching the k-drama "True Beauty" which sort of light-heartedly tries to deal with just this kind of thing.

        I honestly don't know what the answer to that is. Perhaps one might be to remove teenagers from the Internet and texting apps entirely or come up with some way to make such comments very visible to society at large. Many of these taunting tirades survive detection because they are largely hidden as much of bullying is.

  4. Kingbob

    What constitutes an insult?

    How is an insult defined?

    Presumably if someone said "You're an a$$hole", that's an insult. But if they said "In my opinion you're an a$$hole", is it an insult since its an opinion?

    1. Irony Deficient

      Presumably if someone said “You’re an a$$hole”, that’s an insult.

      If (for whatever reason) that someone were directly addressing an anus rather than the entire person equipped with that anus, its status as an insult could be debated.

  5. cupplesey

    Sounds like we need to go back to the good old days and saying it to someones face as that appears to not end up with jail time. Now i agree with kurking online abuse but insults can be productive. Are comedians going to be locked up because someone takes a joke as an insult? Think of a world where toxic people like Piers Morgan are protected by a law like this!

    Also who decides what is an insult especially when a comment can be interpreted in different ways? Can passive agressive comments now be treated as insults....thin end of the wedge my friends.

  6. SundogUK Silver badge

    Snowflakes. The world is full of fucking snowflakes.

    1. elaar

      I'm insulted, go to Jail!

    2. Jedit Silver badge
      Holmes

      "The world is full of fucking snowflakes."

      I'd like to propose an amendment to Godwin's Second Law to include "snowflake" alongside "woke".

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: "The world is full of fucking snowflakes."

        Seeing as Godwin'e Law, in its entirety, reads "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.", where exactly would you fit in the words "snowflake" and "woke"?

        1. Irony Deficient

          where exactly would you fit in the words “snowflake” and “woke”?

          Jedit was referring to Godwin’s Second Law.

  7. jake Silver badge

    OK, I'll bite ...

    "Japan has updated its penal code to make insulting people online a crime punishable by a year of incarceration."

    Out of curiosity, has Japan also defined exactly what is considered insulting? Or is it up to the person who has been "insulted" to define what insult means in any particular case? Because if the latter, I can see this law being ripe for abuse.

    1. AMBxx Silver badge

      Re: OK, I'll bite ...

      Or worse - somebody else decides that they were offended by something that wasn't even said to them.

      I had some banter with an old colleague on LinkedIn. All in good nature and we both gave as good as we received. Somebody else decided to take offence on behalf of my old colleague.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: OK, I'll bite ...

        Agreed. The fuckwits who presume to be offended on the behalf of others are themselves truly offensive. It's getting to the point where nobody can say anything about anything without somebody pretending to get upset about it in somebody else's name. Frankly, I find it grossly offensive that somebody might presume to be offended in my name. Be offended for yourself, by all means, but keep my good name out of your fantasy.

        1. Paul Kinsler

          Re: OK, I'll bite ...

          It's worth making a distinction here: sometimes those who might be labelled as "presum[ing] to be offended on the behalf of others" are in fact rather *defending* those who might be in too weak a position, or be too scared, or be unable for other reasons to defend themselves.

          The useful part of debates like those in this thread is not that the edge cases like clear cut bullying/harrassment, or of fake-offense, exist; and that we might have strong opinions about them. Rather, it is in considering how we might try to make judgements in the large grey area between them.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: OK, I'll bite ...

            Who appointed those people to be guardians of the online downtrodden? Likewise, who decides who is downtrodden online?

            Busy-bodies are rarely thought of as being among society's finest ...

  8. John Doe 12

    Online??

    I read the article a couple of times and don't see anything about whether this law applies to real life also. I mean would you get jailed for saying it online yet it's ok to shout it directly into the face of a person?

    I see no need or point for this law as surely plenty of laws exist in regards to someone being "verbally abusive" already. Being online should not even be part of the equation or taken into consideration.

    1. Totally not a Cylon
      Boffin

      Re: Online??

      Japan is not a Western Country.

      Example: a large company is doing 'something bad'; in the west you can call them out in public and not go to jail because what is said is true, whereas in Japan (and other similiar countries) damaging a company's (or individual's) reputation even with true statements is an offence and people have been jailed over it.

      Cultural differences are a 'good thing' otherwise the World would be very boring....

      1. John Doe 12

        Re: Online??

        I see your point which gives food for thought but what you wrote doesn't relate in any way to what I was asking - which was will this law apply equally online and in real life?

  9. simonb_london

    When I was at school...

    I remember everyone was quite liberal with hurling insults at each other face to face. Being sensitive was not really an option.

    Rising above the insults and developing self-confidence is part of growing up.

    Its a bit like the highway code being changed to give pedestrians who don't look, and are therefore "vulnerable", priority over vehicles because teaching them to look before crossing at junctions is too much effort, apparently.

    1. Mike 137 Silver badge

      Re: When I was at school...

      "Its a bit like the highway code being changed to give pedestrians who don't look, and are therefore "vulnerable", priority over vehicles"

      Under the UK Highway Code, pedestrians always have had right of way. That's just been forgotten a long while back by drivers. And the right of way is unconditional (not dependent on whether they're paying attention or not) simply because a person comes off worse when a car hits them than the car does (i.e. they're inherently more vulnerable).

    2. Wade Bridge

      Re: When I was at school...

      But we're not talking about school are we? We're talking about persistent, targeted vitriol from people you've never even met, no let up.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: When I was at school...

        "But we're not talking about school are we? We're talking about persistent, targeted vitriol from people you've never even met, no let up."

        I'm reminded of Monty Python's "Argument" sketch.

        If you don't want Abuse, try room 12A, next door.

        Also, if you feed the trolls, you get to keep them. PDNFTT

  10. VoiceOfTruth Silver badge

    Japan's efforts to protect online rights might therefore harm its reputation for human rights

    What is that reputation exactly? On the surface Japan is a modern respectful society. On the surface... But have a look on YouTube. There are numerous videos which debunk this facade. If you are arrested for an alleged crime in Japan, you are facing a 99% chance of conviction. It's not that the police and courts there are so wonderful and expert at what they do, it is because civil rights are practically non-existent.

    1. albaleo

      Re: Japan's efforts to protect online rights might therefore harm its reputation for human rights

      If you are arrested for an alleged crime in Japan, you are facing a 99% chance of conviction.

      That's not quite right. Following arrest, if the prosecutor decides to pursue the case, you face a 99% chance of conviction. Many cases are dropped and don't reach the court.

    2. Azamino

      Re: Japan's efforts to protect online rights might therefore harm its reputation for human rights

      Japan was the safest place that I have ever lived, see handle, so whatever they are doing can we have some more of it in London please?

  11. This post has been deleted by its author

  12. Bartholomew
    Flame

    The art of insults will die (in Japan)

    I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal-food-trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.

  13. Graham Dawson Silver badge
    Megaphone

    The easier way to solve this would be to step away from the damn computer. If people are insulting you on social media, turn it off. It's not required for contemporary life, no matter how Jack, Zuck and all want us to think otherwise.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like