Reading the Statement on 'Criminal Prosecution' Released by the Business Group [Official] | Taiyo Kimura's Reflections on the Weight of Words and Responsibility
Hello. This is Taiyo Kimura from the Business Group [Official].
This time, I would like to write frankly about what I felt after reading the
Statement Regarding Prosecution Cases Involving Defamation Against Our Organization Using False Information, and Our Policy for Handling Both Civil and Criminal Matters
published on the official website, and how I intend to
change my own actionsin response to it.
The original text of the statement can be found here.
https://www.jigyokasyudan.jp/legal-action-against-false-information/
The weight of the fact that it has led to 'criminal prosecution'
The beginning of the statement points out the fact that,
in response to the ongoing defamation and dissemination of false information,
a case has finally reached the point of criminal prosecution.
Among these, the following sentence left a particular impression on me.
This case concretely demonstrates that defamation and the dissemination of false information on the internet can realistically become subjects of criminal liability.
On the internet,
there is a certain atmosphere of,
'It's fine because it's anonymous anyway'
or 'Whoever speaks loudest wins.'
But this text clearly confronts us with the fact thatwe have entered an era where that mindset no longer holds true.
The person who disseminated the information posted content that was judged by the court to be 'not true, or not evaluable as true,'
and as a result, they are now standing in a criminal court for unjustly infringing upon honor and credibility.
I felt that this is by no means someone else's problem.
The structure of 'inducing reports' with false information
In the middle of the statement, there is also a mention of the act of
intentionally creating new reportsby fabricating false information and providing it to media personnel.
Acts of intentionally inducing the generation of new reports by creating false or significantly exaggerated information and providing it to media personnel.
Reading this part,
I understood, 'I see, so that was the structure.'
At first glance, it looks like,
・The media wrote the article
・The streamer released the video
but there are cases where intentionally processed false information is placed at the 'entrance' of that process.
And the statement also says this.
“The essence of the problem lies not in the media organizations themselves, but in the actions of so-called 'antis' who create and disseminate false information, intentionally attempting to disparage the social reputation of our organization and its affiliates.”
I felt this sentence was very important.
Rather than broadening the scope of the conflict,
it clarifies exactly who should be held responsible.because it makes it clear.
The declaration to 'take strict measures without hesitation'
What goes even further is
the part written about future response policies.
“Our organization will take strict measures without hesitation, both civilly and criminally.”
“We will disclose the specific content of false information, involved accounts, names, affiliations, and other information to the extent legally permitted, and will pursue thorough accountability.”
Honestly, I don't think there are many statements
written this clearly.
That in itself
must mean that the defamation and spread of false information so far
have reached a serious level.
At the same time,
rather than 'retaliating with emotion' or 'engaging in back-and-forth on social media,'
that kind of response,
a stance of dealing with things calmly based on law and recordscame across strongly.
A message to the media and those who consume information
In the latter half of the statement,
a calm and reasonable request is written to
media personnel and to us who receive information.
“We would appreciate it if you could verify facts based on multiple reliable sources, such as judgments from courts and administrative agencies, and official information released by our organization.”
“Please refrain from easily spreading or agreeing with posts with unclear sources or grounds, or articles and videos that rely on emotional criticism or personal attacks.”
This is not limited to the business group.
It is a very important message
directed at the entire internet today.
What I decided to change myself
After reading this statement,
as Taiyo Kimura, and as a sender of information,
there is something I have decided to consciously change.
1. Do not react immediately to 'strong words'
The more provocative an expression is, the more easily it spreads.
However, I always verify whether there is primary information behind it,
and whether there is any intentional cherry-picking.
② Prioritize official information and judicial decisions
Instead of rumors or summaries,
look first at official websites, statements, and court rulings.
I believe that is the bare minimum of literacy.
③ As a sender, imagine the future
Consider how your words
might affect someone's life, work, or family.
Instead of basing it on 'how I feel right now',
base your communication on 'will I regret this when looking back later?'
In conclusion
This statement is neither
a 'threat' nor an 'emotional rebuttal'.
Addressing false information through the law.
Balancing freedom of expression with respect for human rights.
I felt that this document expressed that stance extremely clearly.
Rather than inciting conflict,
it is a declaration of intent to build upon facts, clarify where responsibility lies, and restore a healthy discourse space.
As someone who is part of this movement myself,
I will continue to communicate while once again engraving the weight and responsibility of words into my heart.
Thank you for reading this far.
Business Group [Official] Taiyo Kimura
■ note
https://note.com/tkimura01
■ Official Site
https://jigyokasyudan-kimura.hp.peraichi.com
https://sites.google.com/view/jigyokasyudan-kimura
■ X
https://x.com/kimura22359458
■ Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/kimura22359458/