"I feel like a parent whose child was kidnapped for 33 months, and then they were found without a scratch," said freelance journalist Hiromichi Ugaya after being awarded ¥5 million in a mediated settlement at Tokyo High Court – having originally faced a libel claim for ¥50 million from chart-compiler Oricon.

Although Ugaya effectively won this battle, he is alarmed at what he sees as an increase in lawsuits being used as a means to stifle criticism and free speech by companies, under the guise of protecting corporate value.

The case dates back to April 2006 when Ugaya was interviewed by telephone about Oricon’s music charts for a Cyzo magazine article. Ugaya says he then found some of his quotes distorted and, despite his protestations, used in an article to suggest there was a dubious relationship between all-powerful entertainment agency Johnny’s Jimusho and Oricon.

Oricon, apparently still smarting from a 2003 article that Ugaya had written questioning some of its compiling methodology, sued him for libel rather than the writer, editor, magazine or publisher of the article. Oricon sought ¥50 million for damage to its credibility, and was eventually awarded ¥1 million in Tokyo District Court on April 22 last year.

Ugaya had countersued for ¥10 million, claiming the suit was abusive and an example of SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.), but his claim was dismissed.
Following his defeat last year, Ugaya launched an appeal, which resulted in a Tokyo High Court judge mediating between Ugaya, Oricon and Cyzo.

“The judge met with all of us separately, including 22 times with me. The fifth and final settlement – proposed on July 23 – was that Oricon apologize for the physical, mental and financial damage it had done to me,” explained Ugaya.

“Oricon was then given two choices: To apologize to me or abandon the case. Abandonment is an unusual outcome that happened in only 0.1 percent of cases in 2007, and amounts to a declaration of defeat,” Ugaya asserts. “The truth is that Oricon surrendered; it committed hara-kiri.”

Ugaya’s cause was given a huge boost when Cyzo agreed to give evidence at the Tokyo High Court proceedings, and submitted documents testifying that they had misquoted him. “So the basis of Oricon’s lawsuit was unfounded. The judge was confused as to why I was even sued, after reading through the testament,” said Ugaya.

The voluntary participation of Cyzo was due in part to a change in the corporate situation of the magazine, according to Ugaya. It had been a subsidiary of Infobahn, but became independent, meaning the editor-in-chief, Tadashi Ibi, moved up to the position of president and no longer had to answer to Infobahn’s board.

“I appreciate Ibi’s actions very much,” said Ugaya, adding that if Cyzo hadn’t cooperated then his lawyers would have had to try and have them subpoenaed to testify. “So they made a smart decision and it also saved me. Though Oricon was suggesting they would sue Cyzo, so I kind of saved Cyzo too.”

The final settlement – agreed on August 3 – which included an agreement from all parties not to engage in further litigation, involved Cyzo paying Ugaya ¥5 million and all parties paying their own legal fees.

“Cyzo has also promised to publish a story explaining how it misquoted me and used my quotes without my permission,” explained Ugaya.

Ugaya claims his loss of income while he was fighting the legal battles amounted to over ¥8.5 million, plus more than ¥1.5 million in legal fees, “So the ¥5 million from Cyzo is only half of that. But you need to sacrifice; you have to pay the price if you fight for democracy and free speech.” The judge rejected Ugaya’s claim that Oricon should pay the other ¥5 million.

On the question of whether Oricon emerged the least scathed from the whole affair, Ugaya noted that Oricon’s stock lost more than half its value after launching the lawsuit prior to last year’s market meltdown.

Despite the outcome of his own battle, Ugaya is concerned that it’s indicative of a wider trend, “My case is over with my victory, but there are many cases continuing against ordinary people brave enough to be whistleblowers. Many members of the public don’t realize these are freedom-of-speech issues.”

Citing the example of the whistleblower from the Shin Ginko Tokyo – whom Ugaya interviewed after he was sued for over ¥13 million yen – he said he feels some responsibility, as this type of case increased in number after he lost in the Tokyo District Court.

“There are a lot of free-speech violations being carried out in the name of protecting corporate value; there are an increasing number of these cases being brought against whistleblowers and journalists,” Ugaya stated. “There is limited power under Japanese law to fight back against these abusive lawsuits.”

“There is a clear and present danger that journalists should be aware of – corporations are willing to sue in the name of protecting corporate value,” warned Ugaya. “And the number of lawyers is increasing with the judicial reforms. Bloggers are also being sued.”

Even though Ugaya won a victory of sorts in his case, he still believes that in some ways it was a successful SLAPP suit, as it will “silence many people. In a sense SLAPP filers don’t care if they win or lose.”
Concerned about the almost complete lack of knowledge of SLAPP issues in Japan, Ugaya is now planning a book project where he will report on anti-SLAPP measures in the United States.

“I want to visit, let's say California, which has one of the most advanced and sophisticated anti-SLAPP legislatures, and interview SLAPP experts, such as lawyers, academics and NPOs,” said Ugaya.

As has been the situation throughout the duration of the legal wrangles, coverage of Ugaya’s victory has been minimal in the mainstream Japanese media, apart from the Mainichi newspaper and TBS television news. The Asahi Shimbun also carried a small piece about it, though Ugaya admits he has some “history” with the paper having written an expose of its workings after working there for 17 years.

The whole process, while stressful, time-consuming and expensive, was not without its benefits, suggested Ugaya: “It made me more cautious, psychologically, but it also made me do even more careful research on stories, and I grew up as journalist. However, when I write about big corporations now, and criticize them, I feel nervous.”
Another positive thing about the lawsuit was, according to Ugaya, “it gave me one more lifework; democracy and free speech are now of much more concern to me even though I’m an entertainment business journalist.”

“I’m still living in the aftermath of the lawsuit and getting back to a normal life,” said Ugaya.
Asked if, knowing what he now knows, he would go through the ordeal again if the situation arose, he answered swiftly, “Of course.” ❶