JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Do you support same-sex marriages?
( 58 )
-
Do you enjoy watching movies in 3D?
( 24 )
-
Do you support torture as an interrogation method if the objective is to prevent a terrorist attack or capture criminals?
( 73 )
-
Would you like to see all U.S. military forces removed from Okinawa?
( 95 )
-
Should Japan be pledging funds to the IMF, Mekong and for other causes overseas?
( 11 )
-
1
Hosono visits Fukushima No. 4 reactor amid concern over fuel pool
-
2
Lady Gaga's Indonesia concert canceled after threats
-
3
Oceanographer says beachcombers on West Coast may find bones in tsunami debris
-
4
New Jersey town's monument to Korean sex slaves upsetting Japanese officials
-
5
241 civil servants file suit over salary cuts
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
41 Comments
Login to comment
0
Farmboy
No, but there should be a helpline available for readers to forward dangerous sounding postings to...preferably to police officers trained to sift dangerous from just insane sounding messages.
Holding a website responsible would basically be forcing all but the largest websites out of business. Do you think a website owner has time to read everyone's messages to everyone else and act on all crazy sounding messages? I don't. You'd wind up with website owners in jail, and criminals not being affected.
0
smartacus
Difficult to answer. I'd say no, but I wouldn't be unhappy to see 2 Channel prosecuted or even shut down. I think that particular online forum is a cesspool full of slander and troublemakers, to say nothing of psychos.
0
TheNewZen
Tough to say.
But board owners need to moderate/police their own boards. Rules for that been established way back in 1968. Yeah, way before the advent of the WWW we had forums, etc. Been there myself.
But as a forum owner myself I am responsible for the ongoings as they are a representation of my forum and it's image globally. Same as any company our outside appearance will reflect on our commercial success/membership.
A forum known for troubles will mostly attract trouble makers.
2chan as many other forums got a BAAAD name on the web, even though the majority of 2chan is harmless and good fun forums.
0
sarcasm123
Is a publishing company responsible for the content of their books?
Yes.
Same for websites, if you ask me.
0
borscht
sarcasm123,
In principle, I agree but the biggest difference between a publishing company and a website forum is that the publishing company goes over their content for accuracy and legality long before it sees the light of day. Publishers use editors, lawyers, and fact checker.
Website forums use.... nothing. They're open for free and frank discussions and postings.
0
CavemanLawyer
The internet is just another one of those things that frighten and confuse me. I am a caveman after all.
If some maniac enters your tribe's cave and starts saying crazy things, should the tribe, who owns the cave, be held responsible? I don't know. I think the maniac would be beaten severely by the tribe though, and would be entitled to several million dollars in damages claims.
This issue touches deeply on free speech in the modern age. Deep down inside I want to defend free speech. But as a lawyer, I feel confident I could convince a court to jail and/or fine owners of such websites and to heck with free speech, so long as there is something in it for me of course.
--Cirroc
0
sandbaggerone
Should the telephone company be held responsible if one of its subscribers whispers the word "bomb" on its network?
0
cwhite
and would it not be too late if the operator was on vacation for a couple of days and when he came back the death threat had already taken place... one can only do so much as to delete, delete and keep deleting stuff. JT should know all about that all to much. If one was to post instructions to build a bomb depending on the time of day it probably wouldn't be removed for an hour or so. What if JT was hacked and linked to some terrorist network, should everyone be locked up for it?
0
jinjapan
well, they sure have to police their sites better. china doesn't seem to have a problem doing that, so why can't the rest of the world? ahhhh. it might cost a few extra bucks.
0
PleasureGelf
Only the posters should be held responsible for posting unlawful content etc. However, website/forum operators should be held responsible for failing to remove such content once they learn of it/are ordered to do so. As far as I know, the 2chan owner ignores at least some court orders to remove a specific content. Then, forum software contains many tools to filter out and censor unwanted or illegal contents.
0
moonbeams
death threats - yes, but only if they do not alert authorities notices of intent to commit crimes - yes, if they do not alert authorities instructions on how to build bombs - yes
0
Mark_McCracken
No, of course not.
Is a copier company responsible if someone copies a plan to kill someone, no.
Is Starbucks responsible if killers meet there to discuss their plan, no.
0
AlfGarnett
it
s a bleeding simple answer binnit. The owner of the site has duty to report it to the old bill, and remove the offensive material. Blimey, you cant go on telly or the radio threatening to do criminal things. The old bill will nab ya, and your likely to get banged up.Websites is the same, they is media, and most of `em is making lots of money, so they should be responsible upholding the law, or face the wrath of the law.
0
Hughgarse
If there is any of that stuff, then it should be shut down yes, but criminal charges? not sure.
0
PerdidoEnTokyo
If I send threats by email, should Hotmail be held responsible?
0
MichaelJP
If you go down the path of arresting website operators for user posts containing information judged morally unacceptable to a particular enforcement body or other group, then you'd soon be barring people for criticizing politicians, complaining about criminally negligent multinationals, speaking out about cults like Scientology and Aum Shinrikyo , etc.
Knee jerk criminalization of free speech is a tricky area, and can easily be abused. The internet is only one medium of communication. Would they also purge libraries of chemistry and biology books containing information that could possibly be used to cause harm, for example?
0
HonestDictator
Ridiculous, of course they should not be held liable for content posted by others. Now if the owners are alerted about something dangerous or threatening posted on their boards or websites they should be held responsible if they do nothing about it.
Remember the supposed freedom of speech. But of course if someone is threatening to end someone elses life, or commit a crime and has the insanity/arrogance to post it on a website then the administrators and moderators should do something about it if informed by their clients, or by their own policing of their boards.
0
ColAmerica
I think you have to consider what country the sites operate from. In China they are repressive and anti free speech.
If the US gov were to set out rules for websites to abide by, i would be happy to accept it. as long as it was to keep the public safe and ensure criminals are prosecuted.
0
HonestDictator
Its not as if they've specified what country though. Unfortunately the internet is an international tool and you can even get scams, hackers, and junk mail from Africa, India, EU and elsewhere. If there is an international set of rules for all countries to abide by I could understand, since there isn't and the internet is not really ruled by set global laws and policing, anything goes and it just depends on where you're living.
0
thundercat
Every one of the comparisons made by previous posters is ridiculous and completely off base (sarcasm123 comes pretty close though). This question arose from an interview with the creator of 2ch. Freedom of speech is a ridiculous argument. Uttering threats, especially death threats is not protected by freedom of speech. It's a crime for a good reason. If these kinds of posts are not removed or moderated then the operator is definately liable.
0
nigelboy
If a guy threatens a person on the phone, is the phone company liable?
Moderator: Readers, please refrain from making these sorts of comparisons, which are meaningless. The poll asks you your opinion on websites and online forums.
0
thundercat
Yes Moderator! I agree these kinds of comparisons are completely meaningless. If you can't see the difference between a telephone conversation between two people and a for-profit entity that collects, saves and redistributes messages you have a problem understanding what it means to 'post' something.
0
nigelboy
Let's review this statement.
Situation 1.
Mr. A threatens Mr. B. on 2ch. Mr. B sees this and reports to the police. Mr. A is questioned and/ or apprehended by the police.
Situation 2.
Mr. A threatens Mr. B on 2ch. 2ch administrator sees this message and is then immediately "removed" (per your request). Mr. B does not see the message, and therefore does not take any action. Mr. A, subsequently assaults Mr. B.
So the JT asks, "Should **operators of websites **be held criminally responsible if users post death threats, notices of intent to commit crimes".
So, would you like to be warned before you are stabbed or not warned and get stabbed? Allow me to ponder for a few minutes as I weigh my options...
0
Nessie
Of course you can. Listen to the trash talk of wrestlers. Listen to the talk about having the SDF participate in illegal fueling. It happens all the time.
The website operator is not responsible for content unless legall ordered to remove it.
0
thundercat
Nigelboy, you forgot about:
Situation 3.
Mr. A threatens Mr. and Mrs. B - Z. The focus of the the threat is anyone and everyone, therefore not one single person feels uneasy about said threat. As well, because of a large volume of threatening posts found on the site, neither the operator nor user takes the message(s) seriously. Mr. A then drives a truck into Akihabara and goes on a rampage. I'm not saying it could have been stopped but there certainly were very clear warning signs... Mr. A even admitted himself that he wanted to be stopped...
If the operator allows such messages to be posted on their website they are responsible for not only removing the posts but also informing the police because making threats ARE illegal.
In your situations there is no way to know whether or not Mr. B will see the threatening message in situation 1 or 2. However, you can guarantee that the operator of a website would/could see such a threat (whether it be through moderation or software designed to detect such threats). Yes, I would say without a doubt it is the operators responsibility to inform police.
The fact that the operator of 2ch as lost numerous court cases speaks volumes about what the legal level of responsibility is in Japan.
0
kokuryu
Most operators of websites do not even know what 1/1000th of what gets posted on a website. A large website with thousands of people using it could get millions of messages.
This is just the same as saying that the company that pressed the piece of paper that the criminal wrote the ransom note on is liable for the ransom.
It is all the fault of only the person who makes the threat.
0
nigelboy
Thundercat
"Informing" the police and "removing" the message are two entirely different actions. Please read YOUR statement.
"Uttering threats, especially death threats is not protected by freedom of speech. It's a crime for a good reason. If these kinds of posts are **not removed or moderated **then the operator is definately liable."
And in fact, 2ch has released access logs for criminal intent messages to the police. The lawsuit you cite is for defamation. (Civil cases)
0
thundercat
I know eactly what I wrote and adjusted my statement to include informing police to clarify my position. I wrote that an operator is liable which has a synonym of responsible, get it? I haven't changed my opinion at all.
You want to fault me for slightly altering my statement to make my position better understood, fine. How about actually posting an opinion instead of constantly criticizing others. You do have an opinion, don't you?
Why has the operator of 2ch released access logs if he is in no way responsible for what is posted on his site? Could it be he fears that he is indeed legally responsible? The defamation lawsuits (libel suits) further prove that he is LEGALLY responsible for what is posted on his site. My statement was that he was legally responsible. I never said criminally or civilly, I said legally. Please point out where I have contradicted myself. While you are at it PLEASE STATE YOUR OPINION.
0
nigelboy
Thundercat.
Read the original question
"Should operators of websites be held criminally responsible if users post death threats, notices of intent to commit crimes, instructions on how to build bombs, etc?"
The original question does not state anything whatsoever about "informing" the authorities nor does it touch on anything relating to civil code violations.
My view is that operators of websites should not be held criminally responsible if users post death threats or notices of intent to commit crimes. See my example above.
In regards to instructions on how to build bombs, that's whole different matter and should not be lumped together with the above.
0
thundercat
Like talking to a wall with you. I posted my opinon. If you just wanted to click do you agree, yes or no, then just click and write nothing. If you want to give your opinion about something, then do that. You get it. It's a forum.
Why are posts on building bombs and death threats different? What, one is a less illegal than the other?
0
nigelboy
Would you prefer a Mr. A going "postal" in Akihabara without warning beforehand or would you prefer that Mr.A warns his premeditated crime so the authorities can deal with it?
0
thundercat
Ok. You want to play the question game. Is a website operator criminally responsible if users post child pornography on their websites? I would guess by your previous post that you think they would not be... or is it ok to pick and choose the laws you want to follow?
0
nigelboy
Is Google responsible criminally if their search enginine "hits" those websites?
BBS are just another "tools" to communicate and that has been my position all along. What if I have a blog site that gets 100K hits a day and some guy threatens to go "postal" in Akihabara? And when the guy posted the message, I happen to be in a place where there are no access to computers for a month. Am I criminally responsible??
0
Nessie
I'm totally with Nigelboy on this.
0
thundercat
You really dont understand the difference, do you? Search engines are completely different from websites (where the information 'resides') so, no Google wouldn't be responsible. If you ran a website that received 100k hits a day and left it 'running' unattended, not only do I think you would be criminally responsible for criminal activities that transpire on your site but you would be an idiot to boot.
0
nigelboy
thundercat.
Doesn't that make them more responsible? You need to clarify.
What if it were just 1K hits? Does that "relieve" my criminal responsibilities? What's the threshhold? Can I leave my website unattended for 2 days? What's the threshold?
0
thundercat
No threshold, if you don't have the safe guards in place you suffer the consequences.
Where do you draw the line? Death threats are ok. Notices of intent to commit crimes are ok. Instructions on building bombs are not ok. Child pornography? Sulfide gas? C'mon, seriously, why should any of these things be ok?
0
Zurg
I suppose the 'Operators' cannot be held too accountable.
Those insane Doe-Doe's use the freedom of speech to threaten and to educate people to do evil. Like 'How To Take A Life', or '5 easy steps to kill yourself'.
I believe one of the four sins in the Divine Principle it is called 'Multiplication of Evil'. That is not aiding and abetting on the Operators side.
However, the Operator can still monitor those 'evil doers' and turn them over to the authorities. Therefore, in one sense, the Operators are not responsible, but they can be responsible by turning those a** holes in.
0
apecNetworks
No, as long as it is moderated to delete extreme forms of comments like, "notices of intent to commit crimes". From my experience, those who would commit an act of retribution for some reason, they generally don't warn the victim, but rather just attack. Then, you have the extensive covert censorship that is occurring in the US - this is a form of moderating the website covertly.
I have tested the covert censorship by posting provocative statements relevant to them, and they can act or react w/in a few hours. Moderators should just concentrate on the obvious problem posts, so that it demonstrates some posts need to be deleted.
0
apecNetworks
For political reasons, the US Agencies places high priority to maintain the illusion of freedom of speech.
Back to top