Last resort to protect privacy

プライバシーの保護と表現の自由

The issue would not have caused such a stir were it not for the fact that the daughter is a member of a famous political family. Her grandfather is the late Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka, one of the most powerful politicians Japan has produced since the end of World War II. Her parents are members of the Diet. A story about the divorce of a woman with no such family pedigree would hardly make a "scoop."

The question here is old, yet new: Where should society draw the line between protection of privacy and freedom of expression. It is a difficult question, especially when it involves Draconian action such as banning a publication. In the latest case, the difficulty has been compounded by the fact that the article in question deals with a person whose mother is a popular politician.

The court order is based on a 1986 Supreme Court ruling that supported an injunction against a journal that carried a defamatory story about a candidate for public office. The ruling said such an order could be issued against any publication that contained false information, served no public interest or threatened to cause serious personal damage from which the victim would find it extremely difficult to recover.

It should be noted, however, that the current case is different from the above case in two respects. First, the ruling dealt with a libel suit filed by a politician. Second, the plaintiff is a private citizen who has nothing to do with politics, although she was born into a distinguished political family.

Regarding the first point, the district court ruled that damage from privacy invasion is potentially more difficult to recover from than character defamation. On the second point, it concluded that the daughter's privacy should be protected because her private life is not a subject of public curiosity. According to the court, the Shukan Bunshun weekly carried an "exclusive" report in its March 25 issue on the daughter's divorce and other aspects of her private life "in a way that would fan readers' curiosity and threatened to give her a serious psychological shock."

The publisher, Bungei Shunju, criticized the injunction as "abnormal," saying it "suppressed" freedom of expression. Its appeal was based on two arguments: first, that the article has public interest because the daughter may someday follow in her mother's footsteps, and second, that there was little practical sense in halting publication because most of the 770,000 copies involved had reached newsstands and bookstores when the court order was issued.

The "public interest" argument seems untenable, because the daughter is a private citizen who has a right to be "left alone." It is an exaggeration to say that she is a public person because she may enter politics someday or because her mother was a popular foreign minister.

The Tokyo District Court's injunction against Shukan Bunshun is a wake-up call not only to the magazine but to other weeklies hungry for gossip. The warning comes against the backdrop of an increasing number of privacy suits that have been filed recently against magazine and newspaper publishers. This attests to the growing importance being attached to the right of privacy in Japanese society.

The danger, though, is that freedom of expression may be unduly restricted in the future if the latest precedent is readily followed. It is quite unusual for a court to order a temporary halt to a magazine's publication. It should remain so. Such blanket action will deny readers access to other legitimate articles in the issue involved if an injunction is fully enforced.

The challenge is to harmonize privacy protection and free speech. The question is whether the district court was right to ban the publication of an article that appeared to contain little that would necessitate such a drastic step. This should be a measure of last resort that can only be taken with utmost caution.

The Japan Times Weekly
April 3, 2004
(C) All rights reserved

      田中氏の長女は一時期、絶大な権力を振った故田中角栄首相の孫で、両親は共に国会議員である。そのような背景がなければ、当人の離婚問題は週刊誌に報道されなかったろう。

      東京地裁の決定は、公職選挙候補者の名誉を毀損した記事に対する仮処分を支持した1986年の最高裁判決に基づいている。同判決は、出版禁止ができるのは「表現内容が真実でなく、公益を図る目的がなく、被害者に回復困難な損害を与える恐れがあるとき」としている。

      しかし、その最高裁判決は政治家によって起こされた名誉毀損訴訟に関するものであり、今回の地裁決定のように政治家の家族である私人によって起こされた訴訟とは性質が異なる。

      東京地裁は、プライバシー侵害は名誉毀損より回復困難な損害を与えるとし、原告の私生活について読者の好奇心をあおるべきでないと判断した。

      文藝春秋社は、(1)原告は将来政界に進出する可能性もあるので記事は公共の利益にかなう、(2)出版禁止決定が下されたときには77万部の「週刊文春」のうち大部分が売店、書店などに配送済みで、決定はほとんど意味がなかった、と主張した。

      東京地裁の決定は、「週刊文春」ばかりでなく醜聞を売り物にする週刊誌一般への警告だが、出版禁止で表現の自由が不当に制限される恐れもある。出版禁止になれば、読者は問題の記事ばかりでなく、他の掲載記事も読むことができなくなる。

      問題はプライバシー権と表現の自由をいかに調整するかである。訴訟の対象になった記事は出版禁止を必要とするほどの内容とは思えない。出版禁止は最後の手段として慎重に運用すべきである。