[According to the Law of Discretion] How far does the 59th.X anonymous account and defamation, and victim identification go?

*This content was translated by AI.

As disputes among SNS users surge, cases of defamation lawsuits on the X (formerly Twitter) platform frequently raise issues.

This is precisely whether the requirement of "specificity of the victim" is met. On X (formerly Twitter), anonymous accounts are often used instead of real names, so this part is frequently disputed.

Defamation is a crime that publicly states true or false facts to damage a "person's" reputation. Article 70, Paragraph 2 of the Information and Communications Network Act imposes aggravated punishment for defamation through the dissemination of false facts via information and communications networks. The key here is the "person's" reputation, meaning the victim must be identifiable. The Supreme Court has consistently maintained the legal principle that "even if a name is not explicitly stated, if the content of the expression, when viewed in light of surrounding circumstances, allows one to recognize that a specific individual is being targeted, the victim can be considered identified."

How this legal principle applies on anonymous-based platforms like X is practically important. If the perpetrator directly tags or links the victim's account to post a false statement, the requirement of specificity is met if the readership of the post could recognize the account operator as a "specific person (individual)." A lower court ruling recognized specificity based on the possibility of recognition within the community, such as followers and senior-junior relationships on an SNS account. Another lower court ruling also determined that even with anonymous posts, the victim can be sufficiently identified if relevant information is gathered.

Conversely, there are also numerous cases where specificity was denied. A lower court ruling denied specificity on the grounds that it is difficult to identify who the user is with only an internet ID, and another lower court ruling held that circumstances such as "only a few acquaintances happen to know" are not sufficient to reach objective identification.

Ultimately, victim specificity on the X platform converges on the standard of "whether the expected readership of the post could recognize the account operator as a specific person." Factors such as the account's activity history, follower composition, recognition within the community, and linkage with other platforms are comprehensively considered.

There is another issue to consider in practice regarding other platform services that allow anonymous accounts, such as X (formerly Twitter). This is the problem of whether the "perpetrator's" identity can be uncovered. Even if only the perpetrator's account is known and their real name is unknown, a lawsuit itself is possible; however, for overseas SNS services like X (formerly Twitter), international judicial assistance procedures may be required to verify the identity, which could result in a significant amount of time being consumed during the investigation or make verification practically impossible. If conversation records from domestic platforms such as KakaoTalk are secured, identifying the identity through a request for communication data is much more efficient.

Recently, SNS defamation cases often lead to substantial damages beyond simple emotional disputes, such as account locking, expulsion from communities, and the spread of secondary victimization. If damage occurs, securing evidence before deleting the post is the top priority. It is important to remember that the strategy for proving each element, such as victim specificity, public nature, and purpose of defamation, can lead to vastly different conclusions depending on the circumstances, making early intervention by an expert crucial.

<© STARNEWS. All rights reserved. No reproduction or redistribution allowed.>

*This content was translated by AI.