EDITORIAL: Freedom of expression

Suppose a person distributes a newspaper of a political party he supports in mailboxes of homes and apartments in an area far from his place of work or home without identifying himself on his day off.

Two men were indicted for such an act, charged with violating the National Civil Service Law, which requires government employees to remain politically neutral. Trials were held separately and one was acquitted by the Tokyo High Court, while the other was found guilty and ordered to pay a fine by a different chamber of the same court.

The outlines of the cases are more or less the same. We have no choice but to say that what made the judges come up with opposite rulings is the difference in the depth of their understanding of "freedom of expression" as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Having pointed out that freedom of expression includes freedom of political activities, Takao Nakayama, presiding judge in the trial that found the defendant innocent, said such an act is unlikely to undermine public trust in the neutrality of the administration as a whole, and imposing criminal liability violates the Constitution.

Meanwhile, without squarely addressing freedom of expression, presiding judge Koichi Ideta in the case in which the defendant was convicted, stated that the distribution of a newspaper is a politically biased act and "if no measures were taken against it, it would undermine the neutral operation of the administration and could lead to unjust intervention and interference by political factions."

Of course, the administration needs to work for the public good and is required to be neutral and fair. Be that as it may, it does not mean that the human rights of individuals can be abused.

Why is freedom of expression important? By thinking and conveying our thoughts to others, people grow and can positively take part in politics. To build and advance a free and democratic society, freedom of expression is indispensable.

Freedom of expression is a basic human right. With that in mind, to ensure the neutrality of the administration, what restrictions should be imposed on public employees and how should they be punished when they violate them?

Studying the propriety of such constraint and punishment meets the philosophy of the Constitution.

Factors such as the status and power of public employees, content and nature of their work and content and circumstances of political activities should be taken into account in determining whether there is a problem or not in each case. We believe the Nakayama ruling, which followed such an approach to acquit the defendant, is reasonable.

As the high court judgment was split, the conclusion will be carried over to the Supreme Court. In 1974, the Supreme Court issued a ruling to strictly limit freedom of political activities by public employees. Four of the 15 justices at the time opposed the decision. The ruling was also strongly criticized by some academics. It became known as the Sarufutsu incident ruling.

Now, 36 years later, we urge the Supreme Court to refer both cases to the grand bench in which all justices take part and thoroughly debate them. The logic behind the Sarufutsu ruling is crude.

Nowadays, the public has developed a deeper understanding of the law and a higher awareness of human rights. Also taking into account changes in the environment surrounding the administration and public employees, we believe the precedent should be re-examined.

We hope to see a decision that advances awareness concerning the Constitution and human rights one step further.

--The Asahi Shimbun, May 15