List of Issues:

1. Under what conditions is the freedom of expression restricted in Japan?
   
   
2. Are broadcasting companies guaranteed the freedom to broadcast entirely independently of government control?
   
   
3. Under what conditions are judges restricted in their freedom of expression?
   
   
4. Is the secrecy of news sources guaranteed for the mass media in Japan?
   
   
5. In terms of elections, what are the conditions under which the freedom of expression is restricted?
   
   
6. Please elaborate on the objective and issues covered by the Government Bulletin.

Background:

1. While the Constitution of Japan prohibits censorship (Article 21, paragraph 2), it is a general practice that the administrative authorities conduct censorship-like activities, such as school textbook authorizations based on the School Education Law (Article 21, paragraph 1), or customs inspections under the Customs Tariff Law (Article 21 paragraph 1). In addition, some of the Youth Protection Ordinances of local governments have unclear criteria that are conducive to arbitrary decisions that restrict freedom of expression. Such ordinances give extensive authority to the heads of local governments to decide that certain magazines are harmful to young people.
   
   Judicial practice as well generally takes a restrictive approach to the freedom of expression. Court precedents tend to easily permit restrictions on public welfare grounds. On the other hand, one decision dismissed a claim of defamation filed by a criminal suspect simply because the plaintiff was found to be guilty in the first trial of the reported case (this conviction was later reversed by the upper court).
   
   
2. The Broadcast Law (Articles 1 and 3) provides for the freedom to broadcast. However, there has been a series of interferences with the freedom to broadcast on the part of the government and the administrative authorities. The Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications issues strong administrative instructions in exercising its authority to supervise and to grant broadcast licenses. Many of those who retire from the Posts and Telecommunications Ministry and relevant agencies immediately assume important positions in broadcasting companies. In particular, for several years now the Ministry has secured one board position at the National Association of Commercial Broadcasters in Japan.
   
   
3. National public servants are almost entirely prohibited from participating in political activities (Article 102 of the National Public Service Law, Paragraph 14-7 of the Rules of the National Personnel Authority, and Article 52-1-(1) of the Court Organization Law). The same applies to local public servants (Article 36 of the Local Public Service Law). Subsequently, their freedom of expression is also strictly limited. One example can be found in an incident in which a judge received a warning from his superior for an essay he wrote for a newspaper voicing his critical opinion of judicial procedures in relation to a guideline of a bill to be submitted to the Diet. Furthermore, the District Court where this judge was employed requested that a High Court repremand him because of a speech he made from the floor at a public meeting concerning the bill in question. The speech was held to be "politically active campaigning," something that is prohibited to judges under Article 52-1-(1) of the Court Organization Law. Court hearings were held regarding the judge's acitivities, but even though they concerned the constitutionally guaranteed status of judges, the public and the mass media were barred from attending the hearings. The request of the District Court was granted by the High Court in July 1998, and that decision is now being appealed to the Supreme Court.
   
   
4. The mass media has been given preferential treatment, either in the legal measures or in practice, in exercising its freedom of expression, while such treatment is not specifically provided for under the Constitution. However, regarding the freedom to gather material for reporting news, secrecy of news sources is not guaranteed by law, and under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the courts have ruled against the right to keep news sources secret. (Under the Code of Civil Procedure, one ruling held that this type of secrecy falls under commercial secrecy, which is to be respected.) In fact, in the course of criminal investigations and trials, the police, the prosecutors, and the court frequently order the news media to submit tapes. Reportedly, in an effort to identify news sources, or to check on a person's ideas, or to identify anonymous writers or informants, the police exercise their authority to collect or seize evidence by checking the users' list of the National Diet Library, or by requesting a bank to submit a record of its accounts in order to identify a writer. These measures destroy the credibility that exists between broadcasters and informants, and are harmful to future information collecting activities of the media. They are explicitly an abuse of search power and a violation of the freedom of expression.
   
   The Court limits filming in the courtroom to only a few moments before the court is in session (the Rules of Criminal Procedure). Filming of testimony in the Diet is prohibited by a special law (the Law Regarding Testimony Under Oath of Witnesses at the Diet). While the records of criminal trials are, in principle, to be made public (the Code of Criminal Procedure), the court almost always denies access by journalists through the use of a special law (the Finalized Criminal Suit Document Law). Access by the general public to trial records is limited to almost the same degree. Access to trial records can often be denied. Photocopying of trial records is prohibited due to the lack of legal provisions to allow it.
   
   In connection with the murder case of a school child that took place in Kobe in May 1997, the Supreme Court and the Family Court requested publishing companies to stop selling and withdraw from stores magazines that displayed pictures of the juvenile suspect. This request was made without a legal basis and is in substance a limitation on freedom of expression.
   
   
5. In terms of elections, freedom of expression is strictly limited in Japan. Candidates are entirely prohibited from visiting private homes when campaigning. Campaigning through new media such as the internet is also severely limited because of the delay in legal adjustments to modern technology.
   
   
6. The Government Bulletin advocates the views of the government even on quite controversial issues, such as the Self-Defense Forces, national security, or nuclear power. It has been criticized as not being an appropriate manner in which to spend tax money, but the government has not responded.