Internet censorship: say it ain't so!

[Tee Kay]

Japan's garrulous bloggers go strangely silent

Justin Norrie, Tokyo
April 5, 2008

IT IS hardly surprising that Japan's technophile population has created one of the world's most vibrant internet cultures and arguably its biggest blogosphere.

What observers do consider strange, however, is the muted response to a Government proposal to scrutinise and regulate all internet content in the same way that it already controls newspapers and television broadcasts.

A handful of critics have accused the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, which has governed the country for all but one year since 1955, of trying to stifle dissent and exert complete control over political expression. But by and large, the controversial proposal, unprecedented for a democratic country, has passed without comment.

The suggested regulations are included in the Government's Final Report on a Comprehensive Legal System for Communications and Broadcasting, and will be put to Parliament in 2010.

What is most alarming, critics contend, is the decision to target kozensei — an ambiguous term meaning "content that has openness". That would almost certainly make millions of currently unregulated services, including blogs, personal websites and bulletin boards, eligible for forcible correction or closure.

Kazuo Hizumi, a journalist-turned-lawyer who blogs prolifically on media issues, has been particularly scathing. "If you look at the fascist movement in prewar Japan, the dangers in the regulation of information by the Government are obvious.

"That the Government is going to get involved in selecting, by means of filtering software, what information should be blocked — this is completely outrageous. This absolutely cannot be allowed."

The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication says this is a silly overreaction. Its proposal to regulate online content, it says, is merely an attempt to bring order to Japan's enormous and chaotic web community, where members often use message boards to launch character assassinations and make defamatory claims.

Websites such as 2channel, thought to be the world's largest internet forum, are littered with slander and vicious, faceless attacks. Despite several successful civil actions against 2channel's Japanese owner, US resident Hiroyuki Nishimura, no one has succeeded in shutting down the site or collecting compensation.

A Communications Ministry spokesman said the Government was "simply aiming to regulate the harmful and illegal online content that is sometimes spread on influential sites".

There is concern that if some of this content is allowed to filter through Japan's multitude of blogs, the result could be embarrassing for the Government.

According to a State of the Live Web report by blog search engine Technorati, 37% of the world's blogs are in Japanese, putting it ahead of English, on 36%, and making it the international language of blogging.

Doubts remain over how many Japanese blogs are actually spam sites, but Chris Salzberg, co-editor of international blog round-up Global Voices, says that, either way, the Japanese produce a disproportionately high number of blogs. The issue, he says, is not that the Government is trying to regulate online content, but that no one is paying attention to the fact.

Recently, Japan's four biggest internet service providers, responding to a separate Government directive, agreed to adopt a "notice and disconnect" policy for illegal downloaders. It all suggests the ruling party is preparing to "bring to an end the days of the country's largely hands-off approach to online communication, ushering in an era of increased government involvement", Mr Salzberg wrote in The Japan Times.

Japan has no ombudsman to hear complaints about television broadcasts and newspaper articles. Instead the big media have always answered directly to the Government. Consequently the relationship between the two is tight — so much so that 81-year-old media don Tsuneo Watanabe, the all-powerful chairman of The Daily Yomiuri newspaper, was almost able to orchestrate a merger last year between the Government and opposition parties to preserve the ruling coalition's grip on power.

The internet, on the other hand, has become a bastion of rigorous political and social debate of the like that Japan — and its uneasy Government — has never seen before. That could all change by 2010.

Mr Hizumi says: "As long as government supervision is permitted, Japan's freedom of expression will be nothing more than that of a communist country or dictatorship."

The Age

Now it appears the China Syndrome is hitting democracies too.

So, how much internet censorship/supervision is too much? Discuss away.

 

[Newbunkle]

I can see sense in banning snuff websites, kiddy porn, brutal/animal sex sites, and extremist groups, etc. but blocking knowledge, gaming, or opinions is just wrong.

 

[aelf]

If they want it, let them have it. Some cultures don't actually appreciate freedom of expression, and I mean 'appreciate' in the objective sense. But if some people are only fed nationalist propaganda and then come here and claim that their country is much better than it really is, then we are entitled to laugh at them without disrespecting their rights, since they have no such rights in the first place. Not that laughing at delusional people is disrespecting their rights anyway.

 

[LucyDuke]

So, how much internet censorship/supervision is too much?

Any.

The stuff that everybody cites, the child porn and what-have-you, is already illegal. No need to prohibit something twice.

 

[Arwon]

What will become of the Chans now!?

 

[Kraznaya]

So, how much internet censorship/supervision is too much? Discuss away.

Any and all.

 

[zxcvbnm]

No need to block the net, just know who runs the websites containing criminal material

 

[Sims2789]

Well, the House of Councilors could always block it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Councillors

Or they could wait till 2010 and get a majority in the House of Representatives.

 

[queendumb]

I can see sense in banning ... extremist groups, etc. but blocking ... opinions is just wrong.

Uh? If you blocked extremist groups you are also blocking opinions and freedom of speech which you said was wrong. So it's ok to block the stuff which you or the people in charge agree with?

I agree with Kraznaya and LucyDuke, any is wrong.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I can see sense in banning snuff websites, kiddy porn, brutal/animal sex sites, and extremist groups, etc. but blocking knowledge, gaming, or opinions is just wrong.

Those aren't illegal because of censorship. Kiddie porn is ilegal since it is illegal to make. Blocking knowledge and ideas is very dangerous. Every where I look government is getting more powerfull and more controlling. It is time we hit back.

 

[Princeps]

I can see sense in banning snuff websites, kiddy porn, brutal/animal sex sites, and extremist groups, etc. but blocking knowledge, gaming, or opinions is just wrong.

Do you know anyone who you can trust to regulate what you can learn and what should be kept from you? Do you know anyone so benevolent and kind that he or she wouldn't abuse this power?

 

[Zelig]

Any.

While I'd like to agree with you in principle in favour of total net neautrality, if you actually work as a network admin, there are some issues with it.

Particularly in managing P2P traffic on large networks, the majority of networking situations don't provide enough bandwidth to allow for all the users to saturate their connection 24/7. It's analoguous to EVERYONE driving on public roads 24/7 in a city; the entire system becomes horribly congested.

The real problem with traffic shaping situations is that it's easy to take it too far in order to save money, and too many ISPs have too little competition, giving them little incentive to optimize their network for happy customers, since angry customers don't have anywhere else to go.

(I realize you may have been simply talking about access to content, but the larger net neautrality issue directly impacts access to certain content, and only becomes an issue when certain levels of supervision are present.)

 

[Humpty Dumpty]

Do you know anyone who you can trust to regulate what you can learn and what should be kept from you? Do you know anyone so benevolent and kind that he or she wouldn't abuse this power?

My parents.

But that is wise statement I like to add. It is right to view people of authority by some cynical values. It prevent you from becoming blind at the sight of their supposed holiness.

 

[LightFang]

What will become of the Chans now!?

We don't want that garbage here.

 

[cubsfan6506]

My parents.

I don't know? Have they passed a california home school test yet.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

It's never good when the subjectivity involving regulation is increased. This is essentially ceding more faith to the government to make the right decision, not to mention in this case more power.

What will become of the Chans now!?

Nothing. We make the series of tubes run. Without us, the lulz would be gone.

 

[Defiant47]

The logical progression is revolution. If necessary, people must die in order to preserve the most fundamental freedoms: the freedom of expression. I would go that far if I lived in Japan. But then again, subject to a different culture, I may not value certain freedoms as highly.

 

[Archbob]

The logical progression is revolution. If necessary, people must die in order to preserve the most fundamental freedoms: the freedom of expression. I would go that far if I lived in Japan. But then again, subject to a different culture, I may not value certain freedoms as highly.

I probably wouldn't die to preserve the most fundemental freedoms. Economic prosperity is probably more important to me than political freedom.

 

[Defiant47]

I probably wouldn't die to preserve the most fundemental freedoms. Economic prosperity is probably more important to me than political freedom.

Freedom is the avenue through which we enjoy life. We may improve the quality of life through better economics, but without our fundamental freedoms, our enjoyment will be limited (unless we do not perceive any freedoms to be restricted).

 

[Sharwood]

Someone on this board has an Arthur C. Clarke quote in their sig that sums up my views pretty well. You have to protect children from things like violence and pornography, but that should be the parents' job. The government should not censor anything, let alone ideas.