Close

Support Global Voices

To stay independent, free, and sustainable, our community needs the help of friends and readers like you.

Donate now »

See all those languages up there? We translate Global Voices stories to make the world's citizen media available to everyone.

Learn more about Lingua Translation  »

Japan: Internet regulation up for debate, but nobody is debating

While nobody was watching, an interim report drafted by a study group under the Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications has set down guidelines for regulation of the Internet in Japan which, according to one blogger, would extend as far as personal blogs and homepages. In the report, this “Study group on the legal system for communications and broadcasting”, headed by Professor Emeritus at Hitotsubashi University Horibe Masao, discusses the possibility of applying the exising Broadcast Law [Ja] to the sphere of the Internet to regulate, under government enforcement, what gets on the web. The report also suggests that public comments be sought on the issue [Ja], in response to which the ministry has opened a space on their webpage for the public to submit comments [Ja], available in the period between June 20th and July 20th.

Despite the obvious significance of the proposed regulation, neither media nor the majority of bloggers are aware of its existence. The most detailed coverage of the issue has been provided by tokyodo-2005, a former journalist, now a lawyer and prolific blogger on media related issues, who has (at time of writing this) already posted seven entries on the topic. In these blog entries, he warns that this legislation would be applied not only to general websites but also to personal blogs and home pages. The report advises, he cites, that contents found illegal based on the significance of their activity (表現活動の価値) would be outside the scope of protections on freedom of expression as specified in the Japanese Constitution; therefore, it is claimed, there would be no constitutional issue with regulating such content.

In the first entry on the topic, he writes:

戦前の日本のファシズム化をみれば、情報が政府による規制を受けることの危険性は明白だ

If you look at the fascist movement in pre-war Japan, the dangers in the regulation of information by the government are obvious.

In his third entry on the same issue, he points out what he calls “an astonishing fact”: that, out of 12 meetings in total, three were held behind closed doors in order to ensure “free and active discussions”.

自由活発な意見を述べるために、密室にする必要があるのか? もちろん、被害者から事情を聞き取ったりする際には、プライバシーが守られる必要があるなどの点から、密室が必要だろう。

しかし、この研究会は、表現の自由に関わる法制度を検討する場だ。その場が、公開されたら、自由活発な意見を述べることが出来ないっていうのは、そもそも、自己矛盾していないかい?

密室での議論、さてさて、公開の場で堂々と述べることが出来なかった意見とは一体何なのか? それとも何やら、談合でもしたのだろうか?

In order to ensure free and active discussions, the meetings have to take place behind closed doors? Of course, in the case of interviewing victims, to protect their privacy, you would need [to conduct the interview in] a closed room.

However, this study group is the place to consider a legal system with relation to freedom of expression. This argument that free and active discussions are not possible if open to the public, doesn't it contradict itself?

Discussions behind closed doors — well, what were the opinions that could not be presented publicly? Or were they talking about some kind of deal?

In his forth entry, he compares the current situation to that of the time of the Manchurian Incident, also known as Mukden Incident, a historical event in which, he argues, the Japanese media played a significant role.

戦前についての反省をいまこそ生かすべきではないのか?

いま、まさに、満州事変のときに、迫られた選択をなさんとしていることに、メディア各社が気付いてほしい。

Isn't now the time for us to reflect on and learn from what happened before WW2?

I want the media companies to realise that right at this moment we are about to make the kind of decision we were forced to make at the time of the Manchurian Incident.

表現の自由の制約に目をつむり、インターネットという市場での自社の利益を優先するのではなく、本来、メディアが行うべき役割、権力監視機能を果たすべきではないか。

数十年後に、「あの中間取りまとめに反対しておけば、通信・放送検閲制度を阻止できたかも知れない…」という憾み節を書かなくてもよいように、子どもや孫に自分の書いた記事を誇ることができるように、頑張ってほしい。

They should be playing the role of an authority-monitoring mechanism, the role of the media, but instead they are turning a blind eye to restrictions on freedom of expression and imposing their own priority for profits on the Internet market.

I want them to do their best so that 10 years from now we will not have to write about our regret that: “If we had opposed the interim report back then, we may well have prevented the communications/broadcasting censorship system…” I want us to be able to proudly show the articles that we have written to our children and to our grandchildren.

そして、私たちネット利用者も、パブコメで意見を述べるだけでなく、インターネット規制に反対しないとは何事か、とテレビ、ラジオ、新聞に問いかけるべきだ。

Also, we as Internet users should not only make statements as public commentary; we should also question the TV, radio and newspapers about why they are not opposing Internet regulation.

多くの方にこの事態を伝えてほしい。もうパブコメの期限まで10日足らずしかない。

Please pass on the information about this situation to many people. We have less than 10 days until the deadline for public comments.

10 comments

Join the conversation

Authors, please log in »

Guidelines

  • All comments are reviewed by a moderator. Do not submit your comment more than once or it may be identified as spam.
  • Please treat others with respect. Comments containing hate speech, obscenity, and personal attacks will not be approved.

Receive great stories from around the world directly in your inbox.

Sign up to receive the best of Global Voices!

Submitted addresses will be confirmed by email, and used only to keep you up to date about Global Voices and our mission. See our Privacy Policy for details.

Newsletter powered by Mailchimp (Privacy Policy and Terms).

* = required field
Email Frequency



No thanks, show me the site