Tokyo Demands YouTube Play Fair

eldavojohn writes "Recently, the city government of Tokyo has requested that political speeches to be pulled from YouTube, claiming that it gave certain hopefuls an advantage over others for Sunday's election. You may recall YouTube being in trouble with more than a few countries in the past. 'Japanese election law limits the broadcasting of speeches, which are aired only on public broadcaster NHK. Soon after the race kicked off last month, the speech by one fringe candidate, street musician Koichi Toyama, 36, has become a popular attraction on YouTube due to his eccentric, confrontational approach.' Is it fair that some government officials are being viewed more on YouTube than others or is it simply leveling the playing field for anyone with a message since it costs very little to put a video on YouTube?"

Governments are getting scared

[Anonymous Coward]

As technology starts to find its way into governance, governments are losing their control over us. Of course this terrifies the elite, but... just as with the internet itself, there is little they can do to stop the coming of open source governance [wikipedia.org].

Ensuring fairness

[MillionthMonkey]

A stupid site like Youtube can complement any current mechanism for "ensuring fairness" that has been set up by the city of Tokyo. How can you be more fair than Youtube? Does one of the candidates lack an Internet connection? Are some of them ugly? Let all the candidates upload their stupid videos to Youtube and maybe Tokyo can sell ad space on the skin of the monsters that invade the city on a regular basis, instead of wasting that space on political ads.
Plus, just because someone has a funny Youtube video doesn't mean you'll vote to put him in charge of your city. Tokyo elections aren't like American Idol ...right?

How is this different ...

[LaughingCoder]

... from well-off candidates being able to distribute printed fliers as often and as broadly as their finances allow, whereas lesser-healed candidates can't do the same? At least with YouTube, people have to take the initiative to go find the video. Conversely, fliers simply appear at your doorstep or are shoved into your hands at the mall. In my mind this is a far more "unfair" practice.

"Fair"?

[popo]

I'm not sure "fair" is the right word. I think most free-thinking individuals would agree that equal access to media is "fair". And any controls and limitations placed on speech are inherently and ultimately "unfair" and abusable.

Re:GooTube, do NOT bend to this pressure!

[superpulpsicle]

I am in huge favor of leaving youtube wide open to NEVER shutting down any videos. And wait for politicians to bitch and whine so loudly that they commit their very own political suicide.

Old law needs updating

[HaeMaker]

It seems to me that the law in Japan did not contemplate online video. They should probably update the law since I believe if a transcript of the speech were posted, it would not be in violation.

The law is a good one, in general, it prevents networks sympathetic to a particular candidate to run their speeches 24/7 and deny access to all others. We have similar laws in the US, which prevents Senator Thompson's "Law and Order" episodes from airing air while he is running for President. It also means Al Franken can not continue his radio show while he runs for Senate.

Download vs. Broadcast

[Bieeanda]

Over here in Ontario, we have a similar system to presumably support fairness: several days before the election, all candidate signage comes down, all of the related commercials stop airing, and the candidates' phone drones stop calling. Campaign websites (if any) stay up, but there's a difference there-- unless you've been infected with a politically savvy trojan, you're not likely to be randomly exposed to a candidate's website or Youtube archives of their commercials.

The only issue that I could see is if this fellow's supporters are astroturfing in order to expose more people to his Youtube spots, and even the effects of something like that would be debatable.

Japan isn't the only country with quirky elections

[patio11]

Even before McCain-Feingold, which involves an unprecidented amount of speech restriction for the US in the political context (it has to be the only US law that makes it illegal to criticize the government during an election!), the US had this lovely little chestnut called the Fairness Doctrine, an FTC policy which essentially micromanaged the content of television and radio broadcasts when they were on issues of public importance during an election. That misbegotten regulation has since been slagged, but the "Oh noes, if we let people have soapboxes they will use them to influence folks!" censorial spirit lives on, even in respectable democracies like the US and Japan.

Eccentric and confrontational is an understatement

[Yumi Saotome]

This is what they're really afraid of [youtube.com]. It would be very funny if he got elected, especially given how 2ch has done stuff like almost getting Masashi Tashiro as Time's 2001 person of the year. [itmedia.co.jp]

He does sound really awesome when you pair him with music from Dragonball Z! [youtube.com]

Is Japan's restriction valid?

[loxosceles]

Japanese election law limits the broadcasting of speeches, which are aired only on public broadcaster NHK.

This is the central issue. It seems to me that they want to avoid allowing demagogues to promote themselves by allowing their speeches to be engrained in voters' minds through repetition. Limiting reproduction of election-related speeches is one way to accomplish that.

I personally am not sure it's a wise choice, but I don't think it's unfair, and I don't think free speech necessarily applies to election-related content. Total censorship is unacceptable, but I'm much less sure about limits of the sort in this case.

Re:Simple solution

[mangu]

8 hours before the election someone floods YouTube and other channels with a faked video showing the current runner up talking about how he is secretly a pedophile and has molested children

If the citizens base their decisions on such flimsy evidence, then they deserve whatever politicians they elect. Anyone who has access to YouTube should know exactly how easy it is to fake a video.

By restricting access to a single channel there is the potential that whomever controls that channel will abuse it, but at the same time it prevents the scenario I described above.

How so? Please explain what's the difference between YouTube and some "official political channel" regarding fake videos? Do you mean that if there existed a single political channel then no damaging evidence against any politician would be accepted, no matter how authentic? Or do you believe the operators of that political channel would have the resources to verify the authenticity of all the material supplied to them?

Having a free press means that at some times some lies may be published. Also some people will be pissed-off about what's published. But in the end I see no other alternative to make sure the whole political system will remain more or less democratic. To paraphrase Churchill, a free press is the worst possible information system, with the exception of all other systems.

Re:Simple solution

[aztektum]

They just provide a forum. If you don't like what's on, sorry, so sad. Cut Internet access to your people if you're not able to adjust to the world.

Let's put it this way. If this was an RIAA article we'd be saying "The MAFIAA needs to adapt to the modern world!" It's not like anyone said the Japanese can't continue eating sushi, work insane hours and make Playstations. What if you're a Japanese tourist in another country? I doubt they're going to hook up a broadcast just so you can see the hamsters run in their wheel.

This isn't exactly a law that has real social benefit. Not like punishment for a crime. This is more closely related to moderating access to information. Speaking as a native of the planet Earth who thinks allowing law to create hardline distinctions between cultures and wishes we could all just "Get along." it's a stupid law at that.

Re:If it's illegal in Japan it's illegal in Japan

[Dunbal]

It's not "levelling the playing field". Quit applying American ideals to other countries. The playing field WAS LEVEL, until YouTube entered the picture. Everyone got their alotted portion of media face-time.


      There's a difference. A TV or radio commercial is something that a party/candidate pays for. Depending on the wealth of the party/candidate, they could easily out-advertise their political competition. The listener/viewer has no choice but to listen to or watch these ads, either. The alternative is switching the media off during election time.

      But video on YouTube is passive. Technically it doesn't cost anything. You won't get to see it unless you actively look for it and click "play". The only thing that determines its popularity is the number of times it is viewed. Political affiliation and the wealth of the publisher do not affect the ranking of the video.

      What happens if someone tapes a political commercial and plays it back for his guests because he likes it? Should it be illegal to record commercials? Ban video recorders?

      What if a political candidate has a website that receives many more hits than all the other candidates? Should websites be banned?

      How about polls? Should polls be illegal if they favor one party/candidate over another?

      Come on, there's a HUGE difference between paid advertising and some video on YouTube. This is just bickering from the rest of the candidates because of jealousy - so they try to manipulate the system to block this kind of stuff from YouTube instead of figuring out how use this new media to their advantage.

      Congratulations for the Anti-American post, however. I missed the "Microsoft Sucks" reference, however. Surely this is all Microsoft's fault. /sacrasm

people in power fear the internet

[sepharious]

never before has a forum existed where anyone can say what they feel and have potentially everyone hear it. it is the ultimate soap box. the paradigm has shifted and I expect to see the politicians begin to address this more forcefully as time goes forward. the younger candidates get it (its NOT a series of tubes to them) and will make use of it, but I am not going to be surprised to see the older politicos condemn this new "heresy" and attempt to squelch it or regulate it to their liking. but this is the true nature, and great value, of a Neutral Network. for once in human history we have built a place where everyone is absolutely, truly free. if you like something, you can find it and find people who like it too. if you dislike something, you are free to either move on or bitch about it if you choose. this is what people in power really fear, that they can no longer tell you what to believe, what to do, how to do it, what you can see, what you can hear, and what you can say. expect to see our WonderfulWorldwideWeb come under attack, be ready to defend it. Viva la Information Revolution!

Re:Information wants to be free

[Syberghost]

Information wants to be free, but fiber optic cable wants to be $1 million US dollars per mile. - Shawn McMahon