In every country, politicians love the censorship of the Internet, because many parents are afraid of the effect of "harmful information" on the Net to their children. In 1996, the U.S. enacted the Communication Decency Act (CDA), but it was rejected as unconstitutional by the Federal Supreme Court. But CDA version 2, which was limited to obscenity provisions, and the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) were enacted and upheld by courts in 2003.
Now in Japan, Sanae Takaichi, a right-wing legislator of the ruling party Jiminto (LDP), is trying to enact a law like CIPA. It enforces the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to filter "harmful" information for children. Other politicians and bureaucrats are worrying such legislation might infringe the Constitution that prohibits the censorship and would have great chilling effects for the ISPs. However, the opposition party Minshuto (DPJ) joined the bill. DPJ's draft is very similar to LDP's. If they join, the bill would be passed in the current Diet session.
Many bloggers, including me (in Japanese), are arguing against the bill. It would be confusing to enforce all ISPs to filter harmful information, as is seen in the mobile phones in Japan, to which operators are installing filtering software. And it would be useless because there is a non-profit organization, the Internet Hotline Center, which has difficulties in treating with 85,000 claims per year to ban the harmful information. Before making a bill, it would be more effective to supply enough resources to the Hotline Center.
Now the Diet almost stopped because the opposition parties dominate the Upper House, but once it moves again, DPJ would submit their bill. If so, LDP would submit their counterpart and negotiate to unite their bills to one. Some NPOs are lobbying to Miho Takai, a leader of the group in DPJ, to stop the dangerous bill. However, mainstream media are silent, probably because the bill would kill their enemy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 Comments:
I'm curious, do you really think that the bill would "kill the enemy of mainstream media"? It seems to me that doing that would require very extensive censorship.
I don't think censorship itself has great effects. However, Japanese companies are afraid of the "media scrum". If the government ordered an ISP to "rectify" its abuse, it will let TV cameras and reporters rush to the company, which hurts its reputation. So its chilling effect is much greater than the fines and penalties.
Hi,
I'm Jonathan, the coordinator of the Israeli Blogger Coalition against Censorship, and I read the article here and In Global Voices. We're currently opposing a similar bill here in Israel (some info) and I'm sure that we can cooperate.
Can you mail me a translation of the bill and some information in english?
Jonathan.
Actually, in the U.S. there is a form of censorship that is probably more sinister than any other form of censorship.
That is: the mainstream media is guilty of self-censorship.
As a result, Americans are some of the most misinformed, ignorant people in the First World. (For example, millions of Americans still believe Saddam was behind 9/11).
At least people who live in nations like China or Iran are aware that the state-controlled media isn't to be trusted. By contrast, most Americans seem to believe there really is "freedom of speech" in our nation.
Incidentally, I know about this censorship first-hand...I worked in the media for many years myself.
I saw first-hand how stories were routinely buried because newspapers were afraid of offending the wealthy, the powerful and the corporations.
If you wish to see examples of this censorship, check out the Project Censored Web site.
It's like the old saying, "As long as money talks, you'll never hear the truth."
So much for "freedom of speech." What a f*cking joke that is in today's America.
Post a Comment