Censorship in Japan

Tokugawa/Edo Period

As publishing became more popular in the Edo Period, the Tokugawa shogunate began to turn to censorship. During this period, the shogunate, or military government, had a constant policy to censor anything deemed as indecent by the government. Initial targets included Christianity, criticism of the shogunate, and information on the activities of the Tokugawa clan. With the Kansei Reforms, any material deemed to be disturbing the traditional way of life, as well as luxury publications, came under scrutiny. Under the Tempō Reforms, printing blocks of erotic literature, as well as the novels of Tamenaga Shunsui and Tanehiko Ryūtei were among those seized.^[5]

Their early bans focused on Christian books, military books (gunsho), mainly as a way to restrict regional daimyō from using Christianity as a political ideology and challenge the bakufu's new rule while imposing their moral authority. As military and political instability settled, the shogunate turned their gaze on social unrest. They were noting an increase in civil disobedience and satirical criticism using literature and theater coming from ordinary people.^[6] An edict for publications guidelines were issued on Kyoho 7 (1722)/11 with an outline of themes that were banned. In addition to literature, the Shogunate also placed limitations on kabuki theater actors. The shogunate prohibited women and children from appearing in plays, but this law was often ignored by theater houses. These new laws resulted in the rise of male actors who would specialize in female roles called onnagata.^[7]

Meiji Period and the Pacific War

After the Meiji Restoration in 1868, which marked a major political shift in Japan, the government began heavy censorship of Western ideas, pornography and any political writings critical of the Emperor of Japan and government, wanting to control the spread of information. Censorship of materials increased from this point, often using ongoing wars to increase police penalties. Episodes of newspaper suppression and imprisonment of editors occurred in 1868, 1876 and 1887.^[8] Freedom of speech and the press was heavily restricted through vaguely worded laws.^[8]

In 1930, the death penalty was added to the list of punishments deemed acceptable for certain violations. This continued, eventually to the Information and Propaganda Department (情報部, Jōhōbu) being elevated to the Information Bureau (情報局, Jōhō Kyoku) in 1940, which consolidated the previously separate information departments from the Army, Navy and Foreign Ministry under the aegis of the Home Ministry. The new Bureau had complete control over all news, advertising and public events. The following year revision of the National Mobilization Law (国家総動員法, Kokka Sōdōin Hō) eliminated freedom of the press entirely, doing things such as forcing papers in each prefecture to either merge into one paper or cease publication, with all articles by the paper having to be screened by government censors before they could be published.^[9]

Occupation of Japan

After the surrender of Japan in 1945, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers abolished all forms of censorship and controls on freedom of speech. Article 21 of the Constitution of Japan was later integrated in 1947 to guarantee that the Japanese had the freedom to associate with each other and express their thoughts freely. However, press censorship remained a reality during the occupation of Japan, especially in matters of pornography, and in political matters deemed subversive by the American government.^[10] Publications submitted by the press were monitored for criticisms about democracy or the problems such as starvation the Japanese citizens experienced during the occupation in the form of regulations set by The Press Code of 1945.^[11]

Censorship of certain events related to the Allied forces left various groups of Japanese citizens to be subjected to discrimination by their peers. Hibakusha experienced life-altering physical changes as a result of the radiation they were exposed to and the lack of press explaining the effects of radiation poisoning made it difficult for Hibakusha to fit in. Unable to speak out against the results of the atomic bombs and to assimilate with other Japanese citizens, most Hibakusha had to live in isolation within the homes of their family.^[12]

The three organizations established by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers and who were tasked with upholding press censorship were the Civil Communications Section (CCS), the Civil Censorship Detachment (CCD), and the Civil Information and Education Section (CIE). The CCS focused on monitoring what was being broadcast to the Japanese people while the CCD monitored printed and filmed works to ensure that no form of media was spreading messages against democracy. The CIE on the other hand, was primarily used to educate Japanese publishers and producers on how to integrate prodemocratic values into their publications to boost support for the new government.^[11]

According to Donald Keene:

Not only did Occupation censorship forbid criticism of the United States or other Allied nations, but the mention of censorship itself was forbidden. This means, as Donald Keene observes, that for some producers of texts "the Occupation censorship was even more exasperating than Japanese military censorship had been because it insisted that all traces of censorship be concealed. This meant that articles had to be rewritten in full, rather than merely submitting XXs for the offending phrases".

—Dawn to the West^[13]

Juvenile offenders

Article 61 of Japan's Juvenile Law, enacted in 1948, states that no article or photograph "of a juvenile, who has been referred to a family court for trial, or a person, who has been charged with a crime committed as a juvenile shall be published in a newspaper or other publication" if it would identify that person by name, age, occupation, address, or appearance. Legal scholarship describes the law's purpose as ensuring "the rehabilitation of the juvenile will not be hindered, and no one in the public will recognize him" after the fact.^[28] The law was tested in a widely covered 2015 Kawasaki case, in which weekly magazine Shūkan Shinchō published the name and photograph of an 18-year-old ringleader convicted in the killing of 13-year-old Uemura Ryōta, an act Nippon.com's coverage describes explicitly as "in violation of Article 61," with the magazine's editors saying the decision followed consideration of the crime's brutality and social impact.^[29] Japan's Supreme Court in 2003 further defined what constitutes prohibited "identifying reporting" (suichi hōdō) under the statute.^[30][31] The identity-suppression rule was partially lifted only in April 2022, when an amendment permitted real-name reporting of offenders aged 18–19 who are formally charged. Research on the change notes that prior to the amendment, "information on juvenile offenders has been rigidly controlled, and their anonymity has been strictly protected," and that "more than 90% of Japanese citizens support the ban" that had been in place.^[32]

Executions and the death penalty

Japan carries out executions by hanging under conditions that human-rights organizations and some scholars describe as unusually secretive even compared to other retentionist states. Amnesty International states that "executions in Japan are shrouded in secrecy, with prisoners typically given only a few hours' notice and their families usually notified about the execution only after it has taken place," and that "the secrecy that continues to surround the notification of executions make the use of this punishment in Japan additionally cruel."^[33] No media coverage of the execution process itself is permitted. Academic legal research published in Criminal Law Forum states that "the secrecy and silence that surround capital punishment are taken to extremes not seen in other nations," and that Japan "remains an outlier with respect to openness" even as other death-penalty jurisdictions have grown more secretive themselves.^[34] Death-row inmates are, according to Amnesty International, "prohibited from contacting the media or politicians," and any communication with permitted visitors is "strictly controlled and monitored."^[35] Attorney Kyoji Mizutani, representing death-row inmates, told a press conference at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan that "the Japanese government has been keeping the facts about executions hidden from public view and avoiding debate on the matter," displaying what reporting described as "an almost fully redacted document" he had received in response to an information request.^[36] The Death Penalty Project has stated that Japan "continues to withhold most details surrounding executions" even as it cites public-opinion survey figures to justify retaining the practice.^[37]

Police press clubs (kisha clubs)

Japan's system of kisha clubs, exclusive press associations attached to government ministries, police departments, and other institutions, is repeatedly identified by press-freedom monitors as a mechanism that restricts and shapes crime and police reporting specifically. Freedom House's Freedom on the Net report states that the kisha club system "contributes to a culture of self-censorship within the media," and that access-limiting tactics are "frequently applied on the management of mainstream media, especially when institutions report on corruption" among other sensitive subjects.^[38] The U.S. State Department's human rights report on Japan states that "domestic and international observers continued to express concerns that the system of kisha (reporter) clubs attached to government agencies may encourage self-censorship." Clubs attached to police departments have been shown to actively restrict information during major crime stories.^[39][40] Coverage of the 2001 Osaka school massacre noted that "reporters that were not part of the local police's press club were denied access to the primary debriefings," receiving only "a short debriefing" after club members had already been informed.^[41] Investigative journalist Yu Terasawa, who has specialized for two decades in covering police corruption, told the Committee to Protect Journalists that kisha club members "print what they're told, often unattributed, as a condition of continued access to those in power," and described the consequence for reporters who diverge from this arrangement.^[42] Kisha clubs also formalize direct reporting restrictions through what are called "blackboard agreements" (kokuban kyōtei), arrangements, according to Wikipedia's source entry on this subject, sometimes made "based on a request by the police, to protect the victims in cases such as kidnappings."^[43]