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

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 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。

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。

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。

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。