Yes they did

"Links to Hamas". Ridiculous statement.

Wow. A criminal matter as well, apparently. Taking deference to a new level!

Although, I don't know about Japan, but here a true statement cannot be libellous. Defamation only applies to false statements.

Quite right!
So, before deciding whether the image could be libellous, the first question would have to be whether the original statement itself constitutes actionable defamation, or is it possibly mere abuse, or indeed so ridiculous that no reasonable person would believe it.

The important proviso is in the brackets.

I do appreciate your position, & having just scoured the 464 pages of the 1991 Irish Law Commission Consultation on the Law of Defamation, & more, in search of enlightenment, & finding that nobody has really definitively addressed this issue, all I can say is: it's a bit complicated ain't it.

Although in that Irish case Berry lost, & it was ruled not to be defamatory. It's an interesting question.

Yes, but have they seen the photos? That seems to be a sweeping & unnuanced generalistion. And what about the public interest defence? I am a lawyer, of course, or I would not presume to pontificate on the subject, although it is not my speciality, & I am always open to argument.

My opinion: No! For honest photography to be thwarted by defamation law would be unintended & plainly ridiculous. Each photo must be considered in its own context as a work of art, not a mere repetition. You must benefit from an unassailable defence of publication on a matter of public interest.

It does not; but then nothing about the egomaniac potato-boy makes any sense.

true, but a bit irresistible.

Foiled again!
l go there only to rant & swear. lt's sort of fun, but also very unhealthy.