### Small case about "water" in court - with 1970s historical background

### Small case about "water" in court - with 1970s historical background

In the early 1970s, Japanese society was in the final stages of its rapid economic growth, and the struggle between liberalization and regulation was evident in the cultural sphere as well. The obscenity trial over "Yonmahan Fusuma no Shimotsukari," an unpublished manuscript by Nagai Kafu, was a microcosm of this situation. The clash between freedom of expression and Article 175 of the Penal Code (the crime of distributing obscene documents) was fought in court, and it became a major social case in which literary scholars, editors, and lawyers appeared.

What happened in that solemn courtroom was the "water incident" of Yoshiyuki Junnosuke. During his testimony, Yoshiyuki became thirsty and lost his voice, and asked the presiding judge for a drink of water. However, the presiding judge immediately replied, "Drinking is not allowed in the courtroom. This symbolized the prestige and discipline of the court at that time. However, Yoshiyuki persisted, saying, "I can't speak." Finally, the presiding judge conceded, "Then, the court will adjourn for three minutes, during which time you may drink. At this moment, a glimpse of human flexibility could be seen in the rigid system, and the entire courtroom was filled with an atmosphere of harmony.

Yoshiyuki recalls, however, that the water supply was inadequate, and the water fountain in the hallway produced only a little water even when he pressed the pedal, so he had no choice but to stick his face into the lavatory faucet and drink directly from it. The scene of the literary scholar running from the witness stand to the lavatory and plunging his face into the toilet to drink the water is one of the most humorous scenes in the courtroom record, highlighting the contrast between the solemnity of the courtroom and the human smell of the courtroom.

This minor incident reflects the contradictions of Japanese society at the time. On the one hand, the concepts of sexual expression and obscenity were strictly regulated, but postwar expressions and customs were rapidly becoming more liberalized. The exchange over water symbolically highlights the gap between such "formality and reality. The flexible response of the presiding judge was a manifestation of his respect for humanity while maintaining formality, and it was an act that demonstrated the nature of the judiciary in a transitional period of cultural norms.