Damages Claim Case (Hate Speech against Korean Resident)

In 2023, a Zainichi Korean woman, Kim Misook, filed a lawsuit at the Osaka District Court against a former member of the ultranationalist group Zaitokukai and the organization itself. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, Yoshida Taro, repeatedly posted hateful slurs and threats online, and publicly burned a Korean flag in a protest targeting ethnic Korean communities. The acts, which took place mainly in 2022 and early 2023, caused severe emotional distress. The plaintiff sought solatium and an injunction. The case, Reiwa 5 (Wa) No. 25623, centered on whether such hate speech and symbolic conduct constituted tortious acts under Japanese law, and the extent of liability for organized hate groups.

The Osaka District Court ruled partially in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the individual defendant and Zaitokukai to jointly pay 880,000 yen in solatium. The court recognized the systematic hate speech and flag-burning as a severe infringement of personal rights, exceeding the limits of free expression. However, the injunction request was denied as the threat of immediate repetition was deemed insufficiently proven.

The primary dispute focused on whether online hate speech and flag-burning directed at ethnic Koreans amounted to illegal tortious acts that justified compensation for emotional distress. Additional issues included the scope of organizational liability for the actions of individual members, the balance between freedom of expression and protection from racial discrimination, and the calculation of adequate solatium for psychological harm suffered by minority individuals.

The ruling was widely reported as a significant judicial acknowledgment of the harm caused by organized hate speech against ethnic Koreans in Japan. It intensified public debate on strengthening anti-discrimination legislation and prompted local governments to reinforce ordinances against hate crimes. Advocacy groups for Korean residents hailed the verdict as a step toward legal accountability, while right-wing activists criticized it as a constraint on free speech, creating a polarized social discourse.