Ienaga lawsuit

In a narrow sense, it refers to measures taken by public authorities to inspect the content of speech, publication, and other acts of ideological expression in advance, and if they find it inappropriate, to impose restrictions (such as prohibiting, modifying, or cutting sales, publication, screening, performance, and broadcasting). However, even after publication, if self-censorship is unavoidable due to the harsh and unprincipled punishment, it still constitutes censorship in effect. In a broad sense, it can be said that not only public authorities but also individuals and groups with social power impose similar restrictions. In principle, censorship is prohibited in modern constitutions, including the Constitution of Japan (Article 21, paragraph 2), but in recent years, it has come to be thought that censorship should be absolutely prohibited, not only because it violates the freedom of the sender (speaker) but also because it deprives the receiver (reader, viewer) of the freedom to know.

*Some of the terminology used in relation to the "Ienaga Lawsuit" is listed below.

Source | Heibonsha World Encyclopedia 2nd Edition | Information

…狭義では，言論･出版等の思想表現行為に対し，公権力が事前にその内容を検査し，不適当と認めるときは規制(発売･発行･上映･上演･放送等の禁止･変更･カット等)を加える措置をいう。しかし，発表後であっても，処罰が過酷･無原則であるため自主規制を余儀なくされる場合には，やはり実質上検閲を構成することになる。広義では，公権力のみならず，社会的に力をもつ個人や団体が同様の規制を行うことも検閲といえる。日本国憲法(21条2項)のみならず，近代憲法は原則として検閲を禁じているが，最近では，検閲行為は送り手(発表者)の自由侵害だけでなく，受け手(読者，視聴者)の知る自由を奪うものとして，絶対的に禁止すべきだ，と考えられるようになった。…

※「家永訴訟」について言及している用語解説の一部を掲載しています。

出典｜株式会社平凡社世界大百科事典 第２版について | 情報