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.
If a Chinese court would side with an American company against its own citizens it means one of two things:
2**
And another superpower near you will be like this in a decade
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:
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.
That is the stupidest fucking idea I have ever heard
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.
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.
There are a lot of cultures that do a lot of stupid shit. This is stupid shit.
There are other countries, not in East Asia, where that’s also true: for example, in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies. Reputation and respect for hierarchy is a big thing in old-school Arab culture, though in other parts of the Arab world such as Lebanon, there is a rich repertoire of invective and shit-talking that’d make a New York cabbie blush.
It’s the same kind of attitude that leads to people murdering their fucking daughter for showing her hair or some shit.
Honor culture garbage. Shit that we should have left behind centuries ago.
I stand by my original statement.
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.
Agreed. 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.
Truth is also not a defense for defamation in the UK, though the law was changed about a decade ago to limit the potential for abuse. The UK is a popular venue to sue for defamation because it gives the plaintiffs a relatively easy ride.
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.”
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.
Well, the article does say that Tesla enjoys the patronage of powerful members of the CCP. Like any capitalist society, China is ruled by the elite, and the elite are friendly with Tesla.
It’s definitely the second. There’s a reason people joke about “Tiananman Square 1989”. Everything is censored to hell and back
With Musk, I’m guessing #2.
It’s not whether the girls father is at fault, read the article. She put a lot of effort into publicly defaming the company to try to get damages. While it seems like they should have had a better response, including sharing the evidence they had, there has to be a better way to get justice
All those things are perfectly reasonable if there actually was a brake failure. That car almost killed her family. If Tesla doesn’t want to be called out don’t put dangerous vehicles on the road.
Of the many issues Tesla has, this is not one of them. They have the telemetry for proof: I blame them for not being more forthcoming with it, and hopefully that would be mandatory in any trial.
However you’re applying Western standards, and many other in this thread talk about “saving face” and that liable is not contingent on the truth in China. She knew what the law is and decided to ignore it hoping that a Western style pr protest would work. Apparently she was wrong, and the result is consistent with what she should have expected.
There does not need to be any kind of worldwide trend for one vehicle to have brake issues.
And as the other reply implied, I wouldn’t trust a single fucking thing Tesla said about their telemetry data on the accident.
If they provided the data and it was reviewed by a neutral third party that found them not to be at fault fair enough but aren’t those cars supposed to have self driving features that would prevent something like this?