511
Her parents were injured in a Tesla crash. She ended up having to pay Tesla damages (apnews.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
75 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Zhang Yazhou was sitting in the passenger seat of her Tesla Model 3 when she said she heard her father’s panicked voice: The brakes don’t work! Approaching a red light, her father swerved around two cars before plowing into an SUV and a sedan and crashing into a large concrete barrier.

Stunned, Zhang gazed at the deflating airbag in front of her. She could never have imagined what was to come: Tesla sued her for defamation for complaining publicly about the car’s brakes — and won. A Chinese court ordered Zhang to pay more than $23,000 in damages and publicly apologize to the $1.1 trillion company.

Zhang is not the only one to find herself in the crosshairs of Tesla, which is led by Elon Musk, among the richest men in the world and a self-described “ free speech absolutist.” Over the last four years, Tesla has sued at least six car owners in China who had sudden vehicle malfunctions, quality complaints or accidents they claimed were caused by mechanical failures.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Japan has similar laws curbing free speech. It comes down to the east asian concept concept of 'face'.

In sociology, face refers to a class of behaviors and customs, associated with the morality, honor, and authority of an individual (or group of individuals), and their image within social groups. Face is linked to the dignity and prestige that a person enjoys in terms of their social relationships.

Japan's defamation/libel laws, similar to this Tesla case China, don't matter if what you said is true. What matters is that you disrespected the 'face' and reputation of those in power.

“(1) A person who defames another by alleging facts in public shall, regardless of whether such facts are true or false, be punished by imprisonment with or without work for not more than three (3) years or a fine of not more than 500,000 yen.”

For example, if a news agency reports on a rapist, or an individual puts up a bad review online: it doesn't matter if it is true. The 'victim' sues you for libel/defamation for speaking the truth because you didn't "give them face" and you hurt their public reputation. Expect the police to come knocking and ask you to remove your truthful reviews, or you risk jail time or civil penalties.

Edit:

The judicial system in China is fucked up beyond repair.

I suspect the judicial system here is working exactly as intended. Its the laws in Japan/China that are fucked when it comes to free speech vs protecting the 'face' of those in power.

Edit 2: I dug up some China specific info: "In Understanding and Application of the 1993 Answers, the SPC [Supreme People's Court] clarified that truth was NOT a defense to defamation. If a work insults and damages a person’s reputation, it is defamatory even if true."

I'm having trouble finding more info about the specifics of the ruling in the Tesla case (AP, CBS, English media don't provide any info), but I'd bet my dollarydoos that the ruling relates to the Chinese civil code concerning the rights of 'reputation' and 'honor' of Tesla being infringed in this instance. The AP article misses a lot of this nuance and detail, which is unfortunate. Something like The Atlantic or the Economist, Foreign Affairs (or NYT 20 years ago) with long form articles and investigative journalism from the days of old might have provided this detail, but these days BBC, CNN, et al care more about click-thru rates so we don't get the full picture.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Japan's defamation/libel laws, similar to this Tesla case China, don't matter if what you said is true. What matters is that you disrespected the 'face' and reputation of those in power.

    That is the stupidest fucking idea I have ever heard

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    In some Asian cultures, saving face is the most important thing in the world. Doesn't matter if people die, as long as nobody important loses face.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I stand by my original statement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I wasn't disagreeing with you, more like elaborating tbh.

    I find it ridiculous too. It's also one of the reasons everyone in the software industry has bad experiences with outsourced Indian software engineers - they'll tell you it can be done, whatever 'it' is. They don't ask for guidance because that would be losing face. And then you have Indian engineers reinventing bicycles, except the wheels are square. The other reason is socioeconomic in nature and irrelevant to the discussion here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    Wasn't trying to sound like I disagreed with your point, more just reiterating how stupid it is.

    And yeah, I've seen that a lot with Indian offshores. One guy is like that, and the other vacillates between competent/does not need direction and asking for clarification on shit he's done previously.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Yeah I found it preposterous when I heard of such laws in Japan. Also the fact that you can get YEARS in prison for such a thing is even more fucked up. The disparity between three years and 500,000 yen, which is close to 3500$US is also ridiculous.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    In your second link it contradicts what you say about it not mattering if it’s true, right below the section you quoted:

    “If the act relates to matters of public interest and has been conducted solely for the benefit of the public, the truth or falsity of the alleged facts shall be examined, and punishment shall not be imposed if they are proven to be true. (See Article 230-2 of the Criminal Code). Article 32 of the Criminal Code provides for the Statute of Limitations for filing a criminal action for defamation which shall prescribe in ten (10) years.”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Yes, if you only consider the letter of the law. But the spirit of the law and the pro-business, pro-those-in-power courts rarely rule in the individual's favor. The laws weren't made for you the individual.

    Don't Get Sued! Libel, Slander, and Defamation Laws in Japan

    More relevant discussion here about the concept of face.

    edit: Key comment here:

    "The law in Japan has a cultural and legal background in much older laws about "damage to honour". Anything that damages someone's social standing, regardless of whether a specific claim is being made, is not on and is liable to be considered defamatory. Further, the lack of a specific claim makes the "truth and public interest" bar much, much harder to meet since you can't claim that your statement was truthful or in the public interest if there's no specific claim the business or person can respond to. If you're just being insulting you're one a one-way trip to a legal spanking."

    I live in Japan and self censor what I say online, avoid leaving negative but truthful business reviews, because there is a very real risk of being sued for libel.

    Edit 2: I dug up some China specific info: "In Understanding and Application of the 1993 Answers, the SPC [Supreme People's Court] clarified that truth was NOT a defense to defamation. If a work insults and damages a person’s reputation, it is defamatory even if true."

    I'm having trouble finding more info about the specifics of the ruling in the Tesla case (AP, CBS, English media don't provide any info), but I'd bet my dollarydoos that the ruling relates to the Chinese civil code concerning the rights of 'reputation' and 'honor' of Tesla being infringed in this instance. The AP article misses a lot of this nuance and detail, which is unfortunate. Something like The Atlantic or the Economist, Foreign Affairs (or NYT 20 years ago) with long form articles and investigative journalism from the days of old might have provided this detail, but these days BBC, CNN, et al care more about click-thru rates so we don't get the full picture.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent