The debate over Article 175 of the Penal Code - with the historical background of the early 1960s

The debate over Article 175 of the Penal Code - with the historical background of the early 1960s

Article 175 of the Penal Code, which prohibits the distribution of obscene documents, had existed since the Meiji period (1868-1912), and it remained in force even in the 1960s, when postwar democracy was considered to have taken root. While urban culture expanded amid rapid economic growth, and expressions in film, publishing, and the performing arts diversified, the question of how to handle sexual expression became an issue that mirrored the tension between the state and society. Especially in the early 1970s, in the aftermath of the student movement and lingering social unrest, state power tended to emphasize the maintenance of order and prioritize regulation over freedom of expression.

The debate centered on whether the article was really necessary to protect "public morals and good morals," or whether it was merely a tool for the state to arbitrarily suppress expression it did not like. The judgment of whether something is obscene or not is extremely subjective and fluctuates with the times and social conditions. Therefore, the law was interpreted flexibly according to the convenience of those in power, and at times literary works and films were exposed while similar expressions were overlooked.

The state's use of Article 175 as a "policy" was also criticized. The article could easily be used for political purposes, for example, by tightening restrictions during periods of social instability, or by assuming a posture of respect for freedom of expression when international criticism increased. This pointed out the danger of the law becoming a tool for maintaining power rather than a universal norm.

In the trial around 1972, these arguments were challenged in a real courtroom. The defense argued that "obscenity regulations are outdated and out of step with the modern state," and pursued the arbitrary nature of state power's regulation of expression. The prosecution, on the other hand, justified the continuation of the article as "indispensable for the maintenance of public order. In other words, the battle over Article 175 of the Penal Code was not simply a question of sexual expression, but an issue that symbolized the struggle between democracy and state control in postwar Japan.

-- Given the historical background of the time, the debate over this article brought to light the contradiction between "a society that wants to expand freedom" and "a state that wants to tighten regulations," and was also a microcosm of postwar Japanese political culture.