Slashdot Mirror
Japan Seeking to Govern Top News Web Sites
RemyBR writes "A Japanese government panel is proposing to govern "influential, widely read news-related sites as newspapers and broadcasting are now regulated."
The panel, set up by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, said Internet service providers (ISPs) should be answerable for breaches of vaguer "minimum regulations" to guard against "illegal and harmful content."
The conservative government, led by the Liberal Democratic Party, or LDP, is seeking to have the new laws passed by Parliament in 2010."
Governments, no matter how benign, really hate unfettered access to information.
The most discouraging part is a majority of people seem to agree ("...well, as long as it's to fight the terrorist...").
The most predictable part is someone will say "...this isn't about free speech".
A truism: "When somebody says 'this isn't about free speech', it almost certainly is".
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
It sounds like a Putin-style media. Free-press is getting harder to find in the world.
Table-ized A.I.
"The conservative government, led by the Liberal Democratic Party"
There's something a little odd about that name, don't you think?
Is there not a Japanese translation of this book?
We are allowed to make fun of other people, but not companies or government officials.
Are you kidding?
So when a news agency reports about irregularities in the next election, and the government forces the story to be clearly marked as speculation and inaccurate, you see no problem with that?
Censorship regimes take many forms. You still have things to learn.
In January 2007, a small court in Japan, making a judgement on yet another slander case, announced that 2channel's holding company was bankrupt and it would be repossessed. This claim was openly mocked by Hiroyuki on 2channel's splash page, and nothing of the sort happened, although 2channel's Japanese ISP ended its operations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2ch#Free_speech Basically, any website that doesn't want government regulation will just relocate its servers to the U.S. Due to the differing laws, they will not be able to subpoena IP logs or have any way of getting at the people that post to the site. The owner of the site may have some trouble if he continues living in Japan, but there will probably be ex patriots in the U.S. willing to "own" the site to avoid such trouble.
See US Liable Laws for a good, civil way to take care of malicious harm. Barriers are high to prevent abuse, it's done after the fact and has nothing to do with the government except for the government providing a neutral judge and documentation of the case. Free speech is so important that prior restraint is reserved only for extreme danger like nuclear weapon design and even then it's debatable. Other restraints like the DMCA are laughable and will be struck down sooner than later.
Setting up a powerful board with a vague mandate is a very different kettle of fish. Analogies to broadcast don't hold internet water. The public interest in pull media demands freedom and neutrality where the public interest in once scarce spectrum demanded accountability. We have all seen how abused that power over broadcast was ... because we now have free internet news for fact checking. That free media has proved more consistent, informative and reliable than broadcast ever was. "Regulation" of the internet will make it look more like broadcast than reliable or truthful. Without care, it will be pure censorship and can also be used to smear and cause harm without redress.
It is hard to believe that this basic issue has escaped the attention of those planning "accountability".
do you live in the U.S.A? could you imagine the Bush regime making the standards for "verifiable accuracy", look at their distortions to justify war and warmongering, cover-ups for environmental damage and interfering with scientific studies, etc.
just relocate its servers to the U.S. Due to the differing laws, they will not be able to subpoena IP logs or have any way of getting at the people that post to the site.
Sure, just post it to wikileaks.
If you read the article, you'll see that this problem apparently extends beyond simple fact-checking. For example, categories such as "religion" and "political party" are already being filtered by rules which are ostensibly meant to make mobile content safe for under-18s.
I have no problem with holding the media to account, but the goverment should not be doing so when it has a vested interest in the output it would be monitoring. Further, the legislation wouldn't limit government control to matters of fact or accuracy (difficult categories to establish in the first place.)
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
No, the most predictable thing on Slashdot is posters who don't read the articles and who parrot the most popular opinion.
The article doesn't mention anything resembling terrorism as the reason. What the article discusses in some detail is that the Japanese ruling political party, the LDP, has ruled the country virtually unchallenged for decades. The slightest bit of thought shows that the LDP has achieved almost every single goal of what the most progressive Democrats are advocating in the United States: universal health care, effective mass transit, a constitutional ban against the use of the military except to defend the nation, unparalleled Internet connectivity and infrastructure, all within the framework of a liberal democracy. (And for many environmentalists, Japan has achieved the ideal of negative population growth.) As part of the system that rules Japan, college entrance exams are used as a filter to establish that those who ascend to rule Japan are part of a meritocracy. This and not terrorism is the context of Japanese concerns to save the children. As has been discussed by the Christian Science Monitor, the Japanese are probably far more willing to accept Internet filtering to protect the children out of fear of web sites that discuss topics such as group suicides.
And given that the Japanese system works better than almost any other in the world (only a few Western European nations even have an argument), a response of apathetic indifference by the majority ruled by that system is indeed perfectly rational and defensible. The bloggers who fear being censored represent the malcontents, the rejects, the people who were not quite good enough, the people who have not demonstrated their ability to responsibly maintain what the Japanese system has built to the envy of the rest of the world.
The LDP are on their way out. They got their butts kicked in the last election and lost the upper house. They haven't been able to sustain a majority of their own in 10 years and have enlisted the help of the Soka Gakkai[1], pardon me I mean the New Komeito Party.
The LDP have had a total monopoly on Japanese politics since WWII. It would be most amusing for this to pass, the to-be-regulated web sites "move" out of Japanese jurisdiction and life goes on as before. Japanese always ignore warning signs[2] when noone is looking, so I wouldn't expect this to amount to much no matter what.
[1] Soka Gakkai and IKEDA Daisuke are to Japan what the Church of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard are to the US. My source? I was unhappily married to one.
[2] I have a really cool digital photo of the highway bus terminal in Tsukuba. There
s a sea of bicycles completely burying a sign in back which reads "no bicycle parking here".
Indeed. I wish people would figure out that what's good for the individual is good for the collective. If not, the collective is fatally flawed and needs to be disregarded or disposed of.
Having said that, I don't really believe in a "collective" in the political sense (although I am without doubt that there is such a thing in the natural and spiritual sense). You can speak of it as though it were a real thing, but it's not. It's more of a construct, an illusion; it's something that politicians find very convenient. I almost never hear the terms "collective" or "greater good" or "for the benefit of the nation" etc used for any purpose other than justifying the subservience of the individual to the state.
Corporations don't have intelligence, or emotions, or souls, or any sort of life. Nor do governments. Such hierarchies are just inanimate objects, tools utilized by people to achieve their goals. The idea that a sentient, sapient human being should submit to an inanimate object to preserve someone's political power is a direct insult against what it means to be human. You wonder why the world is in such turmoil right now? I say it's because a way of life built on such a fatally flawed idea is destined to crumble, sooner or later.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Well don't leave us hanging here! Were you married to L. Ron Hubbard, or Ikeda Daisuke?
There is an argument that broadcast media must be regulated, seeing as how it takes place over public airwaves. I don't see how that applies to printed media or the Internet, though.
do you live in the U.S.A? could you imagine the Bush regime making the standards for "verifiable accuracy",
Yes...because all the other administrations have been so much better. Please.
I'll be glad when Bush is out of office. Because then you'll have to blame the lies, cover-ups, and simple fuckups of the government on someone else.
Hell no, I wouldn't want the Bush admin having control over these 'standards'. I wouldn't want any other administration having that power either.
They scream bloody murder about how implementing a human rights treaty they signed over a decade ago will stiffle free speech, but it's fine if they do it. Bigotry is okay, but we can't have any "illegal and harmful content."
Sendou Wave Kick!!
Censorship regimes take many forms. You still have things to learn.
Xenophobia takes many forms too. And you also have things to learn.
Things in Japan work differently than they do here. In some ways, they have more freedoms than we do. In other ways, they may have fewer. On balance, their system works. It is different than ours, but it works. They have a low crime rate, one of the world's largest economies, very low poverty, and nobody who lives there ever complains about government oppression that I've ever seen. There is no "Patriot Act" in Japan, for example - nothing to the same extent, anyway.
One of the reasons their government probably works as well as it does is that election campaigns only last a matter of weeks, by law, and there are restrictions on how the press reports on them. There is not this free-for-all, superficial shrill screaming back and forth for literally years on end where people are forced to choose up sides and fight rather than work together.
I'm not arguing against freedoms of the press. What I'm saying is nothing is completely unregulated (the press here are not allowed to write libelous articles just because they don't like someone, for example), and it's wrong to assume that the restrictions Japan puts on its press or its citizens are somehow worse than the restrictions we put on our press or our citizens. We don't have some magic formula here that every other country has to copy. Other countries can do things their own way and still allow their citizens to live full and free lives.
Citizens in Japan don't have nearly as much political power as they do in America. They can not vote for the prime minister but only lower-level members. They can not vote on whether large projects should occur like they can in America. I remember when a proposal to build a high-speed rail test track was on the ballot in Colorado my Japanese friends were astonished that we could vote on such a thing.
People in Japan are very much self-censored through societal pressure. It's really a totally different working environment from what I've seen and rather freedom-reducing since people are strongly encouraged to not stand out but to fit in with the rest as best as you can. This is true at least in Tokyo, but from what a friend of mine who lived for two years in the countryside tells me it's the same there. Youths can stand out but once you reach adulthood it's a totally different story.
Your second paragraph is "Dear God, they have a different culture!" Youths can stand out but once you reach adulthood it's a totally different story. You may have lived in Japan, but I don't think you spoke to many Japanese people. When I first got here, I had the same impressions, but after spending most of my time with Japanese people and not with foreigners I came to realize that's totally not the case. People here are really no different than anywhere else in the world except they're nicer to each other (outside of driving, bastards). I'd say people in Japan stick out even MORE so than people in the west. Sure you had Goths in America, but how many 40 year old goths? I've seen 40yo+ lolitas and gyals. Get out of Tokyo and the Salaryman office environment and SEE Japan.
Japanese do not have more freedom than Americans, and their system works, but only barely. They have a low crime rate because fewer crimes are reported, not because they're not occurring (something that has been changing in recent years). There is no Patriot Act, but I'm now required to have my fingerprints and photo taken every time I come home to Japan, even though I've lived here for six years, work as a teacher, and have a Japanese wife, and despite the fact that the only terrorist acts ever committed in Japan were done by Japanese.
Election campaigns only lasting a few weeks means that the people have less time to hear about what's going on, have less time to discuss, and are usually less informed when they finally vote on somebody. Also, candidates are legally limited by how much of the population they can attempt to reach at any one time outside of certain channels - hand-outs, for example, can only be distributed to 8% of the voting population.
How are restrictions on how the press reports on a candidate beneficial? When they're discouraged from revealing things that might cast a candidate in a negative light, even though everybody might be a lot better off knowing? Also, while the Japanese press never writes negative articles about all things Japanese, they feel no such restriction when it comes to writing libelous articles about foreign governments, companies or individuals.
Japan manages to function pretty much exactly the way it always has for the last couple of centuries despite the imposition of the American-written constitution because just like any country, their politicians know how to interpret the law in ways that benefit their own agendas. Those that are in power tend to stay in power; Diet seats still manage to be passed down through powerful families, regardless of the "democratic" process, and the government is currently trying to instill fear into their citizens to serve their own ends.
I recently had my conversation class at the high school where I teach writing about critical issues, and some of the students chose "internet regulation" as a topic. I let them write about it, even though I wasn't sure just how it counted as a critical issue, but now I see by this article that they were responding to the tripe that the media has been feeding people as the government ramps up to passing these stricter regulations.
Remember, in Japan, "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down." The Japanese don't appreciate dissent, and those that are above you are supposed to be all-knowing and infallible, come hell or high water.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
The only difference between this and what's going on in America is that Japan are doing it in the open . You think the main news corps in America aren't censored? You've got to be kidding me. I'd bet you'd all be spitting and writhing if Japan announced any law even a tenth of how ridiculous the Patriot Act is, you bunch of hypocrites.