Global Voices Advocacy » Japan

Japan: Major Parties Cooperate to Legislate Regulation of “Harmful” Internet Content

Chris Salzberg — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:44:52 +0000

Japanese bloggers have been making noise the past few days [ja] in reaction to two separate bills, submitted first by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (LDP) and next by the leading opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), each aiming, in apparently similar ways, to legislate regulation over Internet content deemed to be “harmful” to minors (users under age 18).

On March 19th, LDP Diet Member Takaichi Sanae submitted a bill to a government panel to legislate the “prevention of browsing on the Internet of information harmful to young people” in an attempt to maintain the “sound upbringing of young people”. Shortly thereafter on April 2nd, Diet Member Takai Miho of the Democratic Party submitted a bill with the aim to create an environment that “makes it possible for children to safely use the Internet”. According to bloggers, the bills goes significantly further than earlier legislation introduced late last year, which mandated default filtering on mobile phones for minors. Nonetheless, aside from a single article in Asahi shimbun [ja] on the topic, the two bills appear to have been granted no mainstream media attention.

The bills follow on a recent trend of increasing moves toward regulation of the Internet in Japan [ja], but according to bloggers, this time Diet Members Takaichi and Takai are going significantly further — and advancing legislation significantly faster — than in the case of earlier proposals. Blogger Mishima Sakana at Osakana Blog explains:

18歳未満の人たちがインターネット上の「有害情報」に触れないようにする対策を講じる法律案ってのが、3月の中頃から末頃にかけて、姿を現してきた。朝日新聞の記事では少し紹介されているが、それ以外の大手マスコミには全然出てない。っていうか、ペーパーメディアの人間は全然ヤバさを認識してない。あるいは、分かっててトボけている。この法律案、ものすごくヤバい。

Between mid and late March, a legislative bill has taken shape setting out counter-measures to prevent minors under the age of 18 from coming into contact with “harmful information” on the Internet. An article in Asahi shimbun introduced the topic a bit, but other than that nothing has come out in the mainstream media. Or better to say, people in the paper media are not aware at all of the dangerousness of this bill. Either that or they know, and they are just playing dumb. This bill is horribly dangerous.

He then reviews developments over the past month:

自民党の高市早苗議員が、『青少年の健全な育成のためのインターネットによる青少年有害情報の閲覧の防止等に関する法律案』という法案を詰めていて、これはかなり完成形になっている。池田信夫氏によれば、ブレーンとして警察官僚がついて条文を固めたらしいし、確かに法案の中にはそれをうかがわせる傍証もある（12条のネットカフェ規制とか）。

一方民主党の高井美穂議員を事務局等とするプロジェクトチームは、『子供が安全に安心してインターネットを利用できる環境の整備等に関する法律案』というのを取りまとめている（ちなみに先の高市議員と高井議員は、国会議員の電話番号なんかが載っている「国会議員要覧」で見ると、仲良くお隣同士だ）。

これらの法案の目的は、「性に関する価値観の形成に著しく悪影響を及ぼす」とか「著しい心理的外傷を与える恐れがある」とかそういうインターネット上の「有害」な情報について、青少年が見られなくなるよう全部フィルタリングすること。

これらの法案が、今期国会の混乱のドサクサに紛れて提出され、あっさり自民党案が通っちゃい兼ねない空気になっている（と自民党議員は言っている）。

Takaichi Sanae of the Liberal Democratic Party has worked out details of a bill, the “legislative bill regarding prevention of browsing on the Internet of information harmful to young people for sound upbringing of young people” [Global Voices translation], and this is very much in a completed form. According to Ikeda Nobuo, police bureaucrats are apparently the brains that established the provisions, and within the bill there is probably also supporting evidence that indicates this [involvement] (the regulation of Internet Cafes in Article 12).
On the other hand, the project team organized by Diet Member Takai Miho of the Democratic Party has coordinated a “legislative bill regarding the improvement and so on of an environment making it possible for children to safely use the Internet” (and incidentally, if you look at the “Directory of Members of the National Diet”(国会議員要覧) where Diet Members Takaichi and Takai have their phone numbers listed, you will see that they are cozily listed next to each other).
The purpose of these bills is to implement complete filtering to make “harmful” information on the Internet, information that “exerts a harmful influence equivalent to the form of values about sex” or that “risks causing considerable psychological wounds”, impossible for young people to see.
These bills were submitted in the confusion in the Diet this term, and there is an atmosphere that the LDP bill might actually be quickly passed (that is what LDP Diet members are saying).

The main concerns, he explains, are the following:

内閣府に設置される少人数の青少年健全育成推進委員会（最大数5人）っていう組織が、インターネット上の全てのコンテンツについて、青少年に有害か無害かについての判断基準を作成します。ちなみにその基準への異議申し立ては、多分無理。（法案19条から31条）

個人も含む全てのウェブサイトの管理者は、上記の有害コンテンツの基準に合致した場合、サイトを丸ごと未成年が入れない会員制にするか、フィルタリングソフトへ自らのサイトをフィルタ対象として申請することなどが、求められます。（3条1項）

全てのISP、ASP事業者などには、有害コンテンツの削除やサービスの停止が求められ、従わない場合の罰則も設けられます。結果としてウェブコンテンツの削除は行われることになります。（3条）

全てのPC・携帯電話について、国の基準に基づいたフィルタリングソフトウェアをプレインストール、あるいは、フィルタリングサービスに強制加入することが、PCメーカー（努力義務）及びキャリア（提供義務）に求められます。（5条、8条）

An organization made up of a small number of people, established by the Cabinet Office and called the “Committee on the Promotion of Sound Upbringing of Young People” [Global Voices translation, original Japanese: 青少年健全育成推進委員会/Seishounen Kenzen Ikusei Suishin Iinkai] (at most five people), is drawing up evaluation criteria, for all content on the Internet, defining what is and is not harmful to young people. And incidentally, declarations of objection to this standard is probably impossible. (Article 19 to 31)
Administrators of all websites, including individuals, will also be required, in cases where the contents of their site meets the above standards for harmful content, to do things such as implement a membership system on the whole site so that minors cannot access it, or apply to have filtering software applied to their own site. (Article 3 Item 1)
All employees of ISPs, ASPs, and so on are required to eliminate all harmful content and suspend all harmful services, and there is a punishment being put in place for cases in which these rules are not followed. As a result, deletion of web content will be carried out. (Article 3)
Compulsory participation in the pre-installation of national standards-based filtering software or filtering services will be imposed on PC makers (obligation to make efforts [努力義務]) as well as carriers (obligation to provide [提供義務]) for all PCs and mobile phones. (Article 5, Article 8 )

Blogger Ikeda Nobuo has been another forceful critic of Internet regulation by the government. In an entry posted on March 3rd [ja] (referenced above, see also another post in English), he writes:

まず「青少年有害情報」の定義が広範囲に及び、「〜を誘発するもの」とか「〜おそれがあるもの」というように「青少年健全育成推進委員会」の裁量によってどうにでも解釈できる曖昧な表現が多い。

First of all, the definition of “information harmful to young people” covers a broad range, and there are many vague expressions like “something that causes …” and “something that poses a danger of …” that can be interpreted at the discretion of the “Committee on the Promotion of Sound Upbringing of Young People” [Global Voices translation, see earlier note].

もっとも問題なのは、第9・10条の行政処分と第51条の罰則である。携帯電話では、すでにフィルタリングが業界の自主規制で行なわれており、携帯電話は寡占市場なので、あえて公権力が介入する必要があるとは思われない。逆にインターネットでは、ISPは2000以上あり、そのすべてを監視し、是正命令を出すのは不可能だ。「みせしめ」的に特定のISPが摘発されるおそれが強い。

The greatest problem is in the administrative measures of Articles 9 and 10, and in the penal regulations of Article 51. In the case of mobile phones, filtering is already being carried out through regulation self-imposed by industry, and the mobile phone industry is an oligopoly, so there does not appear to be any need for governmental authorities to intervene. On the contrary, there are more than 2000 ISPs in the Internet, and it is impossible to inspect every everything and issue correction orders. There is a strong danger that specific ISPs will be exposed as a kind of “warning” [to other ISPs].

The articles in the LDP bill to which Ikeda makes reference are the following (taken from the above blog post):

第9条（是正命令）　主務大臣等は、インターネット接続役務提供事業者に対し、是正命令を出すことができる。

Article 9 (correction order): The cabinet minister in charge can issue a correction order to businesses offering Internet connection services [Internet service providers].

第10条（立ち入り検査）　主務大臣等は、インターネット接続役務提供事業者に対し、その営業所に立ち入り、業務の状況又は帳簿、書類その他の物件を検査させることができる。

Article 10 (on-site inspection): The cabinet minister in charge can enter the business offices of businesses offering Internet connection services [Internet service providers] and can inspect the conditions of business, as well as registers, documents and other articles.

第51条（罰則）　第9条又は第13条の規定による命令に違反した者は、6月以下の懲役又は百万円以下の罰金に処する。

Article 51 (punishment): Persons who violate directives issued according to provisions of Article 9 or Article 13 will face a penalty of less than six months of penal servitude or one hundred million yen [about $10,000 USD].

Many other bloggers are also talking about the proposed regulation. Worried about what will happen to “minority” children who depend on the Internet as a place to connect and get help, blogger essa quips that “you can’t protect your children unless you properly choose your politicians” [ja]. In a similar vein, blogger ratio - rational - irrational worries about the classification of “same-sex relationships” as “harmful content” [ja]. At Social Web Rambling, blogger namekawa01 asks [ja] if, with the new regulation bill, politics is returning to a “new 1955 system“. Elsewhere, OhmyNews Japan presents a detailed outline of the LDP bill [ja] through the words of Diet Member Takaichi herself, and CNET offers an overview of both LDP and DPJ bills [ja].

Japan: Mixi in hot water over terms of use revision

Chris Salzberg — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 01:49:08 +0000

Japan’s hugely popular social networking site Mixi is in hot water this week after news [ja] that a proposed revision to its Terms of Use (ToU), to become effective as of April 1st, will force its users to agree to grant Mixi no-royalty, non-exclusive rights over all content published on the site, retroactively applicable to all content uploaded before the changes to the ToU. This means that Mixi can potentially use any content on its servers (including messages sent through its messaging service), ignoring access controls on such content, and potentially profit from it.

Mixi (photo by Flickr user purprin)

Blogger fukamimi translates the most controversial part of revisions to the ToU, Article 18:

By agreeing to the ToU (which all users implicitly do by continuing to using the service):

1. Users grant Mixi a no-royalty, non-exclusive rights (of replication, broadcasting, public transmission, display, distribution, translation, alteration, etc) to any content uploaded onto Mixi servers.

2. Users agree not to assert their moral rights against Mixi. [Moral rights include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work. source:Wikipedia]

(Or as Matt Alt at AltJapan put it: all your content are belong to us.)

Response to revision was swift and decisive, with forums [ja] and blogs [ja] expressing everything from confusion to outrage. While Mixi has since posted a note (viewable only to Mixi users) stating that it has received many comments and is currently investigating possible changes to the above clause, this may not be enough to stem the flow of users leaving its service. Blogger tek_koc writes:

上の文をかみ砕いて説明すると、mixi上に書いた文章や写真はmixi側で勝手に本にしたりするかもしれないよ。しかもそれは無償でだよ、改変もするかもよ、ということになります。

What the above says in plain words is that mixi may use any text or photos published on mixi as it pleases, for example to make books, etc. And on top of that there is no compensation, and the work can be changed.

コミュニティ経由で人の日記を見てみると、熱心に書いている人が本当にたくさんいる。

Taking a look at people’s online diaries through the community, you can see there are really a lot of people who write passionately.

小説家を目指してのオリジナル作品、自分のイラスト、プライベートなことから、テキストサイトのような面白長文など、本当にたくさんです。

Original work by [people] aiming to become novelists, one’s own illustrations, private affairs, interesting long articles like those on text sites, there are a great many of these.

そういうのを見るたび、いつもブログやサイトでやった方がいいと思うけどなぁと思ってはいたものの、余計なお世話だろうと口を噤んできました。でも、mixi側が改めてこんな規約にしたのだから、はっきり言うよ。mixi日記に何かを真面目に書くのはあまりにももったいない。

While looking at these kinds of things, I always thought to myself that it would be better to do this in a blog or a website, but it’s none of my business so I shut my mouth and didn’t say anything. But now that mixi has again made these kinds of rules, I will say it loud and clear. Writing serious things in a mixi diary is a terrible waste.

Many bloggers speculated on possible profit-driven motives for the revision to the ToU, some questioning the wisdom of a money-making strategy based on selling “~~crowdsurfed~~ crowdsourced content”. Blogger k-ino picked out three main reasons for the move:

mixiがなんでいきなりこういった行動をとったのか。考えられるのは、

Why has mixi suddenly taken this action? Here are some possible thoughts:

広告ビジネスの次を目指して、人気のあるコミュニティの内容などで儲ける。

未成年の飲酒喫煙など、問題が生じる日記の削除が目的

コンテンツを抱え込みたい

Aiming at the next stage after the advertising business, they hope to earn money from the contents of popular communities.
They aim to eliminate [online] diaries that create problems such as those of underage drinking and smoking.
They want to hold and dominate [online] content.

Well-known lawyer and blogger Ogura Hideo (小倉秀夫) [ja], meanwhile, blogging at benli, cites various parts of Japan’s Copyright Law in tackling legal aspects of the controversial revised agreement:

mixi騒動に関して気になったことの一つに、「公表権」についての一般の誤解というのがあります。

One of the things that worries me in all the noise about mixi is that there is a common misunderstanding about “kōhyōken” (”Right of making the work public”).

公表権とは、その著作物でまだ公表されていないもの（その同意を得ないで公表された著作物を含む。以下この条において同じ。）を公衆に提供し、又は提示する権利をいいます（著作権法第１８条第１項）。つまり、著作者の同意を得て公表された著作物については、著作者は公表権を行使することはできません。

The kōhyōken states that: “The author shall have the rights to offer to and to make available to the public his work which has not yet been made public (including a work which has been made public without his consent; the same shall apply in this Article).” (Copyright Law Article 18, Clause 1.) In other words, the author cannot exercise their kōhyōken with respect to works that have been made public with the consent of the author.

従って、mixi内に投稿したコンテンツについて投稿者が公表権を行使しうるかは、この投稿行為が著作権法上の「公表」にあたるのかが問題となります。では、著作権法上の「公表」に関する規定を見てみましょう。

Therefore, with respect to the potential to exercise kōhyōken for contents contributed within mixi, the issue is whether or not the action of contributing [work] falls under the “making public” (kōhyō) of (Japanese) Copyright Law. So let us have a look at the regulation of “making public” in Copyright Law.

He then cites Clause 2, Article 4 of Japan’s Copyright Law (translation courtesy of the Copyright Research and Information Center), which defines the phrase “made public” (公表された) as:

著作物は、第二十三条第一項に規定する権利を有する者又はその許諾を得た者によつて送信可能化された場合には、公表されたものとみなす。

A work shall be considered as having been “made public” when it has been put, by a person having the rights mentioned in Article 23, paragraph(1) or with the authorization of such person, in such a state that it can be made transmittable.

The expression “made transmittable” is explained in Article 2, Clause 1(ix-5) of Copyright Law as “putting in such a state that the interactive transmission can be made by either of the following acts:” (1) “to record information on public transmission memory of an interactive transmission server already connected with telecommunication networks for public use”, and (2) “to connect with telecommunication networks for public use an interactive transmission server which records information on its public transmission memory or which inputs information to itself.” (For full descriptions see the relevant passage of the translated Copyright Law.)

Ogura notes that “interactive transmission” is defined in article 2, Clause 1(ix-4) of same law as:

自動公衆送信公衆送信のうち、公衆からの求めに応じ自動的に行うもの（放送又は有線放送に該当するものを除く。）をいう。

“interactive transmission” means the public transmission made automatically in response to a request from the public, excluding the public transmission falling within the term “broadcasting” or “wire-diffusion”;

And that “public transmission” is defined as:

公衆送信　公衆によつて直接受信されることを目的として無線通信又は有線電気通信の送信（電気通信設備で、その一の部分の設置の場所が他の部分の設置の場所と同一の構内（その構内が二以上の者の占有に属している場合には、同一の者の占有に属する区域内）にあるものによる送信（プログラムの著作物の送信を除く。）を除く。）を行うことをいう。

“public transmission” means the transmission of radio communication or wire-telecommunication intended for direct reception by the public, excluding the transmission (other than that of program works) by telecommunication installations one part of which is located on the same premises where the other part is located or, if the premises are occupied by two or more persons, both parts of which are located within the area therein occupied by one person;

From all these legal definitions, he concludes:

従って、mixiが「閉じた空間」であろうとも、そのコンテンツにアクセスしうる人が「多数人」といえる程のものであった場合には、mixiへの投稿により送信可能化がなされ、著作権法上の「公表」がなされたということになります。

Therefore, even if mixi is a “closed space”, if the people who can potentially access the contents is on the order of a “great number of people”, then as a result of being contributions to mixi, works are taken to be “made transmittable” and are “made public” according to Copyright Law.

[...]

では、マイミクが少ない人は大丈夫かというと、そこがまた難しい話です。すなわち、不特定人については少数（極端な場合１人）であっても「公衆」にあたるという見解が広く支持されており、そのような見解を支持する人々の多くは、何をもって「特定」人とするかについて家族に準ずるほどの高度の個人的結合関係を必要とするという見解である場合が少なくありません（私はそういう考え方には反対なのですが。）。このような見解に立った場合、そのコンテンツにアクセスできる人の数が少ないとしても、コンテンツ投稿者と、これにアクセスすることができる人との間に、家族に準ずるほどの個人的結合関係がない限り、投稿＝送信可能化＝公表ということになり、その時点で公表権を喪失するということになります。

However it is still difficult to say, just because the number of people on “my mixi” is small, that things are okay. That is to say, the view with respect to “unspecified number of people” that even a small number of people (one person in the extreme case) constitutes “public” has broad support, and among the many people who support this view, there are more than a few with the view that “specific” persons requires a bond as highly personal as those at the level of family (I personally object to this kind of idea). Based on this view, even if there are only a small number of people who access contents, as long as the relations between the content creator and those who access the contents are not on the level of the personal bonds within families, the logic that “contribution” = “making transmittable” = “public” applies, and at that point the “kōhyōken” (”Right of making the work public”) is forfeited.

従って、mixi内の投稿について必ずしも著作者が公表権を行使しうるとはそもそも言えないということになります。

Therefore, regarding contributions within mixi, from the start one cannot say that kōhyōken can necessarily be exercised by authors.

Japan: Final Report on Internet Regulation

Chris Salzberg — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:24:13 +0000

The idea that a country boasting one of the world’s most active net cultures, with possibly the world’s largest blogosphere and almost certainly its largest online forum, would attempt to regulate online content within its borders may appear to some not only far-fetched, but infeasible. Plans unveiled (with little fanfare) earlier this year by the Japanese government, however, aim to do exactly this, targeting a broad range of content, including blogs and personal homepages, in fairly vague terms.

In an interim report [ja] on the proposed regulation published in June by a study group under the Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, the broadest of three major types of online communication to be regulated was expressed in the vaguest of these terms. An article posted in June at atmarkIT explains that:

最後の公然通信は最も対象コンテンツが幅広い。中間報告は「ホームページなど公然性を有する通信コンテンツ」と公然通信を定義する。電子メールなど特定の人とだけ行う私信以外のすべてのネット上のコンテンツが、対象になると見られる。「2ちゃんねる」などの掲示板や、個人のブログも公然通信だ。

The last [type], open communication (公然通信/kouzentsushin), targets the most extensive range of content. The interim report defines open communication as “communication content having openness [kouzensei/公然性] such as homepages and so on”. With the exception of private messages used only between specific persons, in the form of email and so on, it seems that all online content will be targeted. Bulletin board services such as “2-channel”, as well as personal blogs, are also [considered] open communication.

The interim report also recommended that public opinions be sought on the issue, so back in June and July the ministry opened a space on its webpage for people to submit comments. Later coverage [ja] indicated that the government received a total of 276 responses, 222 from individuals and the remaining 54 from organizations. Whereas organizations such as the Japanese telecommunications operator KDDI and Sky Perfect Communications were were reportedly in favour of legal restructuring but expressed reservations about the regulation of content, the Keidanren, Asahi Television, Fuji television, Japan’s public broadcaster NHK, and the Japan Newspaper Publishers & Editors Association were entirely against the plans. Many organizations, including Yahoo Japan, requested clarity about the range of what exactly constitutes “open communication”.

With the publication early this month of a final report [ja] on the proposed regulations, setting down steps to move ahead and submit a bill to the regular diet session in 2010, the topic has finally entered the spotlight. Blogger tokyodo-2005, who covered the issue extensively while it was in the public comments phase, posted an extensive post on the topic of the final report, translated here in its entirety.

In the post, he began by remarking on the achievement of the 222 individuals who submitted comments against the regulation:

ネットについての規制が政府主導でなされ、ネットの表現の自由が奪われるのではないかというおそれがある、「通信・放送の総合的な法体系に関する研究会」の「中間取りまとめ」に対しては、異例の多さのパブリックコメントが寄せられた（※１）。その多くは規制に反対するものだった。その結果、同研究会が１２月６日にとりまとめた通信と放送を融合させる法制度に関する最終報告書には、反対の声を少し配慮したような表現が盛り込まれた。罰則を阻止したようにも読め、大きな成果といえるかもしれません（ﾊﾟﾁﾊﾟﾁ）。パブコメをお願いするシリーズを展開した当ブログとしても少しほっとしています。しかし、規制は一度始まれば強化されます。しかも、致命的な欠陥である「政府による監督」については「独立行政委員会」を設けるべきだという提言はされていません。このまま、法制化させないように、今後も、声を上げ続けましょう。

An “interim report” of the “study group on the legal system for communications and broadcasting,” in which [it was noted] that regulation of the Internet is led by the government, and that [as such] there is a danger that freedom of expression on the net could be taken away, drew an exceptionally large number of public comments (Note 1). Most of these were against the regulation. As a result, the final report of the same study group about the legislative system integrating communication and broadcasting, summarized on December 6th, included an expression which indicates that the voices opposing [the proposed regulations] may haven been taken into consideration. This may be interpreted [as meaning] that introduction of penal regulations was prevented, which could be seen as a major achievement (applause). As a blog which featured a series [of posts] asking [people to make] public comments, [I was] also somewhat relieved by this. However, once the regulations have been initiated, they will be intensified. And on top of this, regarding “government oversight” — the fatal flaw — there was no motion to recommend establishing an “independent administrative commission”. From here on, let’s all continue to raise our voices against [this regulation] being legislated.

まずは、最終報告書（※２）の記述（２１頁以下）から。

First, from the description (below page 21) of the final report (Note 2):

He then quotes directly from page 21 of the final report, translated below:

日本国内では現在、著作権法や薬事法等の個別法において違法情報の発信規制が行われているほか、ＩＣＴ利用環境整備の観点からは、個人の権利を侵害する情報についてプロバイダの責任制限や発信者情報開示請求権を定めたプロバイダ責任制限法が制定されているが、社会的法益を侵害するような違法な情報への法制的な対応は諸外国に比して十分とは言い難い。プロバイダが自主的に行っている対策について、法的根拠等の規律整備を求める声や、迅速な被害者救済を求める声も多い。

At the present time within Japan, the transmission of illegal information is regulated in statute laws of the Copyright Law, the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law and so on, and also from the viewpoint of improving the environment of ICT [Internet Communications Technology] usage, service providers limited liability legislation has been enacted regarding information violating the rights of the individual, establishing a limitation of liability and claims rights for service providers with respect to the disclosure of senders’ information. However, compared to other countries, it is hard to say that legislative measures, directed at information that violates societal interests protected by law, is itself enough. There are a great many voices calling for the improvement of discipline, with a basis in law, regarding the implementation of countermeasures taken independently by service providers, and demanding that aid [be provided] promptly to victims.

しかしながら、違法な情報に対して国が包括的かつ直接的な規制を課すことは、言論・表現活動の過剰な萎縮を招くおそれがあり、また、ブロードバンド網の発展等を背景にここ数年で急速に開花した我が国の自主・自律を旨とする豊かなネット文化と相容れない可能性が高い。パブリックコメント等でも同様の意見が多数寄せられたところである。

Nevertheless, there is a danger that the government imposing direct and comprehensive regulation with regard to illegal information would invite the excessive atrophy of speech and expression. As well, there is a strong possibility that [such regulation] would be incompatible with the rich net culture that has blossomed rapidly in our country over recent years against a background of broadband network development, one that takes as its principle [the values of] independence and autonomy. In public comments [about the regulation] and so on, opinions of this kind were received in great numbers.

これらを総合的に勘案し、情報通信法という包括的な法制においては、違法な情報に対する国による包括的かつ直接的な規制は当面差し控えることとし、情報通信ネットワーク上で情報を流通させる全ての者が本来遵守すべき最低限の配慮事項を、具体的な刑罰を伴わない形で整備することを検討すべきである。同時に、社会的法益を侵害するものも含め、違法な情報への迅速な対応・被害の防止・被害者の救済を図るため、例えば、関係者の法的責任の明確化や、ＩＳＰ等による削除やレイティング設定等の対応の法的根拠の整備など、行政機関が直接関与しない形での対応を促進する枠組みを整備すべきである。なお、違法な情報の流通状況・被害状況については今後詳細な調査を行い、必要があれば刑罰の付与等の適否についても検討すべきである。

Taking these collectively into consideration, in the comprehensive telecommunications legislation called the Telecommunications Law [Jouhou Tsushinhou/ 情報通信法], comprehensive and direct state regulation against illegal information should be withheld for the moment, and there should be an investigation, in a form not accompanied by concrete punishment, of the minimum items of consideration demanding essential compliance of all users distributing information by means of information and telecommunication networks. At the same time, there needs to be the development of a framework for accelerating a response, in a form which does not involve direct participation of an administrative body, in order to deal promptly with illegal information — including [information that] violates societal interests protected by law — and to prevent injury and attempt to provide relief to victims. [What is needed is] a response with a legal basis, for example clarification of the legal responsibility of authorized people, or, through the ISP , elimination [of service to a user] or establishment of a rating service. Furthermore, in the future, a detailed study should be performed regarding circumstances in which there is a circulation of illegal information, or in which there is injury. If there is a need, the adequacy of punishment, etc., should also be investigated.

The blogger goes on to quote a passage from the interim report (Note 3), translated here:

【具体的には、「公然通信」に係るコンテンツ流通に関して、各種ガイドラインやモデル約款等が策定・運用されていることを踏まえ、違法・有害コンテンツ流通に係る最低限の配慮事項として、関係者全般が遵守すべき「共通ルール」の基本部分を規定し、ＩＳＰや業界団体による削除やレイティング設定等の対応指針を作成する際の法的根拠とすべきである。「プロバイダ責任制限法」などＩＣＴ利用環境整備関係法制度についても、可能な限り一元化すべきである】（１０頁）

In concrete terms, given that various guidelines and model agreements regarding the circulation of contents involved in “open communication” have been laid out and put into effect, as minimal items of consideration regarding the circulation of illegal and harmful content, there should be regulation of the basic part of the “shared rules” with which all persons concerned should comply, which will be a legal foundation for creating policy responses, such as [service] cancellation or establishment of a rating system by an ISP or industry group. Regarding legislation related to improvement of the ICT environment such as “service provider limited liability legislation”, where possible there should be unification (page 10).

The blogger then comments:

両者の違いは、どうやら罰則の有無のようだ。中間とりまとめ段階では、明記されていなかったが、罰則が設けられる予定だったが、最終報告書では罰則をはずす方向で明記されたということらしい。

The difference between the two seems to be the existence/nonexistence of penal regulations. At the stage of the interim report, this was not clearly specified, and although there had been plans to establish such regulations, it seems that what was specified in the final report was [oriented] in the direction of removing them.

もし、そうだとしたら、これはパブコメによるかなりの収穫だと思われる。罰則を伴うということは強制捜査を伴うということで、その場合、いやがらせ逮捕などによって、表現の自由を封殺することができる。しかし、罰則がなければ、強制捜査はできない。

If this is the case, then this seems to be a substantial achievement of the public comments. That there would be accompanying penal regulations means that there would be accompanying compulsory investigations, and in that case, it would be possible, through arresting someone in order to harass them, etc., to suppress current freedoms. However, if there are no penal regulations, then there are no compulsory investigations.

…とはいえ、もし、パブコメでの反対表明がなければ、罰則がつく方向で最終報告書が作成されていたのかと思うと、ぞっとする…。

… even so, when I think that, had there not been public comments expressing opposition, the final report would have been framed in terms of moving these penal regulations ahead, it makes me shiver…

もちろん、【行政機関が直接関与しない形での対応】（最終報告書２２頁）といっても、放送に関する独立行政委員会のない日本では形式的には間接的であっても実質的には直接的な関与となることが十分に考えられるため、油断できないし、【なお、違法な情報の流通状況・被害状況については今後詳細な調査を行い、必要があれば刑罰の付与等の適否についても検討すべきである】（最終報告書２２頁）とまで言っているのだから、なおさらだ。

Of course, even though they write “in a form which does not involve direct participation of an administrative body” (page 22 of the final report), in Japan, where there is no independent administrative committee on broadcasting, even if formally this is indirect, in substance it is conceivable that there could be direct participation. Because of this, we cannot drop our guard, all the more so as they went as far as to write: “Furthermore, in the future, a detailed study should be performed regarding circumstances in which there is a circulation of illegal information, or in which there is injury. If there is a need, the adequacy of punishment, etc., should also be investigated” (page 22 of the final report).

なお、有害情報（違法な情報とは必ずしも言い難いが、公共の安全や秩序に対する危険を生じさせるおそれのある情報や特定の者の権利や福祉にとって有害と受け止められる情報）については、中間とりまとめでも最終報告書でも、ゾーニング規制を採用するべきだと述べており、この点は変更がない。

Furthermore, regarding harmful information (I hesitate to necessarily say illegal information, but information that may possibly give rise to a danger to public safety and order or information perceived as harmful to the rights or welfare of a specific person), in the interim report as well as the final report, it is stated that a zoning ordinance should be adopted.

ところが、最終報告書（２３頁）によると、【具体的にはフィルタリングの提供の在り方について検討すべきである。また、民間事業者による有害か否かの具体的判断を支援するための第三者機関を制度化することについても、その必要性も含め検討すべきである】とされており、危険性が顕在化した格好だ。

However, according to the final report (page 23), it says: “In concrete terms, there should be an investigation about ways of offering a filtering [service]. Also, the investigation should include the necessity of institutionalizing an independent organization to provide aid in judging concretely the harmfulness, or lack thereof, of private business.” There is the appearance of danger having been exposed.

つまり、第三者機関を設けて有害性の判断をする方向へ持って行くようだが、その第三者機関は、政府主導のものとなりそうなのだ。なぜなら、同じページに、【具体的な有害性の判断について、ＩＳＰ等では現実的には個別に判断することが困難だという問題点が指摘されており、現行の自主的な対応では十分ではなく国の積極的な対応が必要との声もある】と明確に書かれているからだ。

In other words, while there appears to be a move in the direction of establishing an independent institution to judge harmfulness, it also seems that this independent institution will be under the direction of the government. Because on the same page, it is clearly written that: “As has been pointed out, the problematic issue is that, realistically-speaking, it is difficult for ISPs to individually make judgements regarding concrete harmfulness, and there are voices that [argue] that the current voluntary response is not enough, and that there is a need for an active effort from the government.”

フィルタリングソフトによって遮断すべき情報の選択に政府が絡むなんてとでもない話だ。到底容認できない。

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.

しかも、個人のブロガーの問題だけでなく、いわゆる報道機関にとっても、問題の残る最終報告書となっている。毎日新聞（※４）によると、【新法が制定されれば、影響力の大きいメディアによってネット配信されたコンテンツが政治的に偏っていたり、有害だと判断された場合は配信者（事業者や個人）に対し削除や訂正を求めることができるようになる】という。確かに、その趣旨のことが、最終報告書１７〜２０頁にかけて掲載してある…。

On top of this, this is not just a problem of individual bloggers; for so-called media outlets as well, there remain problems in the final report. According to Mainichi Shimbun [newspaper] (Note 4): “If the new law is established, when contents distributed on the net by influential media are judged politically biased or harmful, it will become possible to cancel [service] of the distributor (businessperson or individual) or demand corrections.” Certainly, this is the substance of what appears in pages 17-20 of the final report…

政府が、メディアに対し、「政治的な偏り」を訂正するよう指摘できる国…それって共産国とか独裁国なみの自由しか与えられないってことではないだろうか…。放送については電波の有限性から説明がなされうるが、そもそも、日本では放送行政を政府が携わっていること自体が問題なのだ（※５）。

A country where the government can indicate to the media to make corrections of “political bias”… doesn’t that mean that they are going to give as much freedom as communist countries or dictatorships do?… The explanation of broadcasting begins with the finiteness of radio waves, but from the start, the fact that in Japan the government is engaged in the administration of broadcasting is itself the problem (Note 5).

　本報告書の決定的な問題点は、通信と放送を融合した法制度を設けるに当たって、監督機能を政府から「独立行政委員会」に移すべきだという提言をしていないことなのだ。政府による監督を許す限り、日本の表現の自由は、共産国や独裁国なみだというほかない。

The decisive problem of the report is that, in the establishment of a legislative system that fuses communication and broadcasting, there is no proposal from the government recommending that the supervisory function be transferred to an “independent administrative committee”. As long as government supervision is permitted, Japan’s freedom of expression will be nothing more than that of a communist country or dictatorship.

　この点、パブコメでも多くの方が、指摘していたが、「通信・放送の総合的な法体系に関する研究会」は、これを無視した格好だ。

This point was also mentioned by many of the people who made public comments [about the proposed regulation], but the “study group on a comprehensive legal system for communication/broadcasting” appears to have ignored [the point about the supervisory function].

　上記毎日新聞によると、総務省は来年１月にも情報通信審議会（総務相の諮問機関）に制度の見直しを諮問し、新法の具体案を詰めるたうえ、２０１０年の通常国会に提出する構えだという。

According to the above-mentioned Mainichi shimbun [newspaper] article, in January of next year, the Ministry of Home Affairs will consult the Information and Communications Council (advisory organ of the Minister of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications) regarding review of the system, and once details of a concrete proposal for a new law have been worked out, there is a plan to present it at an ordinary session of the National Diet in 2010.

　それまでに、独立行政委員会の必要性をより多くの市民に理解してもらわなければならない。みなで、情報流通させましょう！

Until that time, we need to make more citizens understand the necessity of an independent administrative council. Everybody together, let’s spread this information!

Notes for the blog entry are listed below: